lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: lockdep, false positive ?
Hi Peter,

On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 11:44:41AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> Yes, if both locks are of the same class it will report this. Lockdep
> does lock chain validation on classes, never on individual locks.
>
> A class usually consists of all locks that share the lock init site; but
> there are ways to explicity set another class.
>
> In case of these recursions we have helpers like spin_lock_nested(&lock,
> subclass) that allow you to annotate these. These sub-classes must then
> always be taken in the same order; subclass < 8.
>
> In this case its probably easier to explicity set a class, as the
> nesting is not exposed to the input layer, so it doesn't know about it.
>

Is there a way in lockdep to mark all instances of a given lock as distinct?
I'd rather do that in input core once and be done with it.

Also another question I've been meaning to ask - we have lockdep annotations
in serio code and they work fine first time around but if you reload
psmouse module lockdep will barf if you have SYnaptics touchpad with
pass-through port. What gives?

--
Dmitry


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-04-09 18:15    [W:0.030 / U:1.248 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site