Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 9 Apr 2008 12:11:25 -0400 | From | Dmitry Torokhov <> | Subject | Re: 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
| |