[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2375c9f91002091912t52d8a1c6q1533ecfde5a5740e@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:12:18 +0800
From: Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>, "Eric W ." <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sysfs: differentiate between locking links and non-links
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> 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?
>
Not because it is expensive or not, it is because whether it hits the real
problem.
What I am doing is trying to add a "mutable" flag to sysfs files, those files
could be removed from kernel during some changes, e.g. cpu hotplug, I/O
scheduler switch. I add a new lockdep class for all of them, so that will be
safe for all cases like this.
If I understand this case correctly, it is not that different with the
rest cases
that I met, thus should be included into my fix.
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