[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1199016831.31975.7.camel@lappy>
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 13:13:51 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@...il.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/12] Use mutex instead of semaphore in driver core
On Sat, 2007-12-29 at 22:42 -0800, David Brownell wrote:
> On Saturday 29 December 2007, Alan Stern wrote:
> > There's no way to remove these, which means there's
> > no way to prevent lockdep from issuing a warning.
>
> There may be no *efficient* way to do that. If it tracked
> every lock individually these false alarms could go away;
> but that would increase the overhead to create and destroy
> such locks too.
No, tracking locks individually defeats the power of lockdep, that is
warning of lock inversion before it actually happens. That really
requires classes.
Annotating a tree requires grouping per level, and that isn't
particularly hard (although I haven't yet tried it for the device tree -
doing this conversion is still on my todo list). The hardest part of the
device->sem conversion is the suspend/resume part, where it locks the
whole tree and lockdep is limited in tracking held locks.
--
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