[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B728CFE.40208@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 19:39:58 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
CC: Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sysfs: differentiate between locking links and non-links
On 02/10/2010 05:03 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> writes:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> On 02/10/2010 11:08 AM, Américo Wang wrote:
>>> This bug report is new for me. Recently we received lots of sysfs lockdep
>>> warnings, I am working on a patch to fix all the bogus ones.
>>>
>>> However, this one is _not_ similar to the other cases, as you decribed.
>>> This patch could fix the problem, but not a good fix, IMO. We need more
>>> work in sysfs layer to fix this kind of things. I will take care of this.
>>
>> Can't we just give each s_active lock a separate class? Would that be
>> too costly?
>
> When I asked the question earlier I was told that that locking classes
> require static storage. Where would that static storage come from?
Maybe I'm glossly misunderstanding it but wouldn't embedding struct
lockdep_map into sysfs_node as in work_struct do the trick?
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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