[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070705084323.GB2447@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 10:43:23 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
Cc: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Thomas Sattler <tsattler@....de>
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] debug workqueue deadlocks with lockdep
* Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru> wrote:
> > > Isn't it better to call lock_release() with nested == 1 ?
> >
> > Not sure, Ingo?
>
> Ingo, could you also explain the meaning of "nested" parameter? Looks
> like it is just unneeded, lock_release_nested() does a quick check and
> use lock_release_non_nested() when hlock is not on top of stack.
hm, i forgot about that. We basically turned off all bad-nesting
warnings in lockdep due to false positives.
the workqueue dependencies should all nest perfectly so please just use
nested==1, even though it's a dummy right now. We might want to turn
unlock-nest checking back on in the future. Or we'll remove that
parameter altogether.
Ingo
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists