[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1217876729.3589.66.camel@twins>
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 21:05:29 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>
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
On Mon, 2008-08-04 at 11:56 -0700, Roland Dreier wrote:
> > 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?
Good question, one which I don't currently have an answer for - see my
other mail why getting rid of the MAX_LOCK_DEPTH limitation is hard.
I'll give it another serious go tomorrow (if nothing else preempts me).
--
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