[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1002091917230.31159@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 19:19:04 -0800 (PST)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
cc: Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sysfs: differentiate between locking links and
non-links
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, Américo Wang wrote:
> > You should be able to reuse Neil's sysfs_dirent_init_lockdep(sd, type) to
> > seperate the lock classes for the sd getting pinned in
> > sysfs_get_active_two() from sysfs_deactivate(), although using subclasses
> > would probably be optimal since there is a clear parent -> child relationship.
>
> Yeah, basically, my fix is also adding a separate lockdep class, but
> at a different
> level. I will send the fix as soon as I finish it.
>
They shouldn't be entirely seperate classes for your "mutable" cases since
there will always be a parent -> child relationship, they should be
subclasses under the same lockclass at a SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING level.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists