[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1204019626.6242.225.camel@lappy>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:53:46 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 2.6.25-rc3] lockdep: add spin_lock_irq_nested()
On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 14:33 -0800, David Brownell wrote:
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
> > +
> > +/* tell lockdep that this IRQ's locks and its parent's locks are in
> > + * different categories, so that it won't detect false recursion.
> > + */
> > +static struct lock_class_key gpio_lock_class;
> > +
> > +static inline void mark_gpio_locking(unsigned gpio_irq)
> > +{
> > + lockdep_set_class(&irq_desc[gpio_irq].lock, &gpio_lock_class);
> > +}
> > +
> > +#else
> > +
> > +static inline void mark_gpio_locking(unsigned gpio_irq)
> > +{
> > + /* NOP */
> > +}
> > +
> > +#endif
Glad to hear this works out for you.
Just one note, you don't need the #ifdef mess here. struct
lock_class_key is 0 bytes on !LOCKDEP and lockdep_set_class*() is
defined away as well.
--
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