lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jan]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
Subject[PATCH 0/5] lockdep: (Was: check && lockdep_no_validate)
On 01/17, Alan Stern wrote:
>
> On Fri, 17 Jan 2014, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > Yes, sure. This change assumes that the only problem in drivers/base is
> > dev->parent->mutex / dev->mutex dependency. If the locking is even more
> > "broken" (wrt lockdep), we can't replace lockdep_set_novalidate_class()
> > with lockdep_set_auto_nested().
>
> I suspect it is even more "broken". But I can't point to specific
> examples.
>
> ...
>
> My guess is that if your change is deployed widely, there will be
> reports of violations. That's only a guess.

OK, lets (try to) do this later. Let me send the changes which I hope
should be fine in any case.

> Still, you could go ahead and try it, just to see what happens.

Yes, perhaps it makes sense at least to test this change and see what
happens... We will see.

> Also, take a look at commit 356c05d58af0. It's a similar situation
> (not exactly the same).

At first glance, can't __ATTR_IGNORE_LOCKDEP() use no_validate too ?
(ignoring the fact checkpatch.pl won't be happy). This can simplify
the code, it seems.

Oleg.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-01-20 20:01    [W:0.215 / U:0.108 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site