[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <adazlnssj6h.fsf@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 11:56:38 -0700
From: Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...ranet.com>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, jeremy@...p.org,
hugh@...itas.com, mingo@...e.hu, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] workaround minor lockdep bug triggered by mm_take_all_locks
> NAK, come-on, you didn't even bother to look at the available
> annotations..
Agree that this trylock-in-a-loop is a horrible hack that should never
be merged.
However I wonder what you think the right way to annotate the
potentially unbounded number of locks taken in mm_take_all_locks() is?
- R.
--
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