Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751502Ab1DKMeO (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:34:14 -0400 Received: from mtoichi14.ns.itscom.net ([219.110.2.184]:47005 "EHLO mtoichi14.ns.itscom.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751040Ab1DKMeO (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:34:14 -0400 From: "J. R. Okajima" Subject: Re: Q. locking order of dcache_lru_lock To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Al Viro , Christoph Hellwig , Nick Piggin , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <1302510651.2388.8.camel@twins> References: <9769.1302268831@jrobl> <1302369133.2388.1.camel@twins> <29946.1302498571@jrobl> <1302510651.2388.8.camel@twins> Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 21:33:52 +0900 Message-ID: <9823.1302525232@jrobl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 512 Lines: 17 Peter Zijlstra: > Not really a problem, locking order is simply a tool/scheme to avoid > deadlocks. Since there is no deadlock potential its fine to 'violate' > locking order. I see. Then lockdep always ignore all tyrlocks? Thank you for answering. J. R. Okajima -- 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/