Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757311AbYAQTpu (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:45:50 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756597AbYAQTo5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:44:57 -0500 Received: from hu-out-0506.google.com ([72.14.214.230]:65106 "EHLO hu-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756225AbYAQTo4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:44:56 -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=AeKcfhPKPmcdwp8NxRxxRJD0meHmVsMMJ6yEqHPNuqtkJ47YSJDJXXDr7m8WsSG2DCYQJrYYVwczzgqMGNABcZOgvLxnmI2m4ZaQEK2SvOUdOG/bWnh3RFjetKlbOnjmKC7oTU0zF5hmbvY4AVYPgLo7YH1TguTlOO/njfrBB+M= Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 20:47:28 +0100 From: Jarek Poplawski To: Alan Stern Cc: Dave Young , Greg KH , stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de, david-b@pacbell.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] driver-core : convert semaphore to mutex in struct class Message-ID: <20080117194728.GA2598@ami.dom.local> References: 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: 1265 Lines: 31 On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:16:30AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > On Thu, 17 Jan 2008, Dave Young wrote: > > > > Your meaning isn't clear. Do you mean that your patch doesn't generate > > > any lockdep warnings at all? Or do you mean that it generates a single > > > lockdep warning at boot time and then no more warnings afterward? > > > > I means the latter one. > > That's very bad. > > For each type of violation, lockdep only gives one error message. So > the fact that you get one message at boot time and then no more doesn't > mean the code is almost right -- it probably means the code has lots of > errors and you're seeing only the first one. I hope it's better than this: lockdep really stops checking after first warning, but I've understood from David's description that after fixing this one place lockdep seems to be pleased. On the other hand, according to Greg the code is OK, so if there are any such warnings they simply have to be false! (...Unless you trust lockdep more?!) 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/