Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750895AbWINPvq (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Sep 2006 11:51:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750899AbWINPvq (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Sep 2006 11:51:46 -0400 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.170]:16263 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750893AbWINPvp (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Sep 2006 11:51:45 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=jhCSHQ0Yf4IATKdFXUxhh/EIK0yAZDi/SNDhfa0CNzc1+uLacf6lzO6ts2l2xGZkqPFViLi6Au/N2grh75kOl9TR6YQHA4aLDNI6S5i7kN/Xv6tTsT145Ih/inSH2Sz3aBKBzNXutFkS3HJFPUIOhSKoclRjxnyy2SYzXlm4IBg= Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 11:51:42 -0400 From: "Dmitry Torokhov" To: "Jiri Kosina" Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Synaptics - fix lockdep warnings Cc: "Andrew Morton" , lkml , "Arjan van de Ven" , "Dave Jones" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <200609132200.51342.dtor@insightbb.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1158 Lines: 28 On 9/14/06, Jiri Kosina wrote: > On Thu, 14 Sep 2006, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > Yes, this is much, much better. Could you please tell me if depth should > > be a true depth or just an unique number? The reason I am asking is that > > I hope to get rid of parent/child pointers in serio (they were > > introduced when driver core could not handle recursive addition/removing > > of devices on the same bus). > > I am afraid you can't generate just any unique number to represent the > lock class, as the lockdep validator fails if the class number is higher > than MAX_LOCKDEP_SUBCLASSES, which is by default 8. > > Regarding the patches - should I submit them upstream, or will you? > Not yet ;) Is there a way to hide the depth in the spinlock/mutex structure itself so that initialization code could do spin_lock_init_nested() and spare the rest of the code from that knowledge? -- Dmitry - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/