lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Sep]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/3] Synaptics - fix lockdep warnings
    On 9/14/06, Jiri Kosina <jikos@jikos.cz> 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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2006-09-14 17:55    [W:6.220 / U:0.104 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site