Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758603AbYAPI2c (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jan 2008 03:28:32 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753216AbYAPI2X (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jan 2008 03:28:23 -0500 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.171]:50193 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751079AbYAPI2W (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jan 2008 03:28:22 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=kiNBYkbT2Xdi+jUbpQIhKueqDU6R9374ELxIVfzdE/Dow9wHYJrX8v/6kHPf4ZFLIHeJQTptitEowu5/tmQ4UAO1VF0NDM6J05ZhX9k5ePbfxsakR9JMMg2IeYd+6FESaBK5NzCzWvbGPFaLKiCt9bJI4quI1pUpRIBBnQNadjE= Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 09:34:43 +0100 From: Jarek Poplawski To: Dave Young Cc: Greg KH , stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de, david-b@pacbell.net, stern@rowland.harvard.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] driver-core : convert semaphore to mutex in struct class Message-ID: <20080116083442.GA2307@ff.dom.local> References: <20080112100515.GA2956@darkstar.te-china.tietoenator.com> <20080115091527.GB3186@darkstar.te-china.tietoenator.com> <20080115135604.GD1696@ff.dom.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1036 Lines: 41 On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 09:03:03AM +0800, Dave Young wrote: ... > The lockdep warining was posted in the below thread, actually, I have > built and run this patced kernel for several days, there's no more > warnings. > http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/1/3/2 Right... But, with something like this: ... have_some_fun(... cls) { mutex_lock_nested(&cls->mutex, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING); have_other_fun(cls); mutex_unlock(&cls->mutex); } ... have_more_fun(...) { ... mutex_init(&cls->mutex); mutex_lock(&cls->mutex); have_some_fun(cls); mutex_unlock(&cls->mutex); } probably you wouldn't get any lockdep warning too... Of course, if we know all the locking is right such proper lockdep annotating shouldn't matter too much. (And of course this could be improved later.) Regards, Jarek P. -- 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/