Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 14 Sep 2006 11:51:42 -0400 | From | "Dmitry Torokhov" <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| |