Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 10 Jul 2006 11:49:10 -0400 | From | "Dmitry Torokhov" <> | Subject | Re: lockdep input layer warnings. |
| |
On 7/10/06, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> wrote: > On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 16:29 -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > > Well, you are right, the patch is in -rc1 and I see mutex_lock_nested > > in the backtrace but for some reason it is still not happy. Again, > > this is with pass-through Synaptics port and we first taking mutex of > > the child device and then (going through pass-through port) trying to > > take mutex of the parent. > > Ok it seems more drastic measures are needed; and a split of the > cmd_mutex class on a per driver basis. The easiest way to do that is to > inline the lock initialization (patch below) but to be honest I think > the patch is a bit ugly; I considered inlining the entire function > instead, any opinions on that? >
It is ugly. Maybe we could have something like mutex_init_nolockdep() to annotate that lockdep is confused and make it ignore such locks?
Of course there is a chance that lockdep is correct but I do not think so.
-- 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/
| |