linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] Synaptics

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 14 Sep 2006 11:51:42 -0400
From:	"Dmitry Torokhov" <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To:	"Jiri Kosina" <jikos@...os.cz>
Cc:	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...l.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Arjan van de Ven" <arjan@...radead.org>,
	"Dave Jones" <davej@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Synaptics - fix lockdep warnings

On 9/14/06, Jiri Kosina <jikos@...os.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@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/