[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B6F7FD0.9010500@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 11:06:56 +0800
From: Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Miles Lane <miles.lane@...il.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch 0/2] sysfs: fix s_active lockdep warning
Alan Stern wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Feb 2010, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>> Right, so this device stuff is much more complicated than I was led to
>> believe ;-)
>
> Haven't I told you all along that tree-structured locking is
> complicated? :-)
>
>> So the device core doesn't know, so how are you guys making sure there
>> really are no deadlocks hidden in there somewhere?
>
> In the code I've seen, deadlocks are avoided by always taking the locks
> in the same order. But who knows? Maybe there _are_ some hidden
> deadlocks lurking. For now we can't rely on lockdep to find them,
> though, because it gets sidetracked by all the false positives.
>
This is almost the same with the sysfs case...
Thanks.
--
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