[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1002262153050.4245@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:54:29 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
cc: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>,
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
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Feb 2010, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 4 Feb 2010, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > However in view of the other difficulties, it still doesn't seem
> > > > possible to make device mutexes work with lockdep. I suggest removing
> > > > Thomas's patch.
> > >
> > > Unless Thomas or anyone else thinks of something that can solve these
> > > problems, I will do so.
> >
> > Hmm, I have not seen those lockdep splats on -rt where we have the
> > mutex conversion for quite some time already. Need to look at it.
>
> Thomas, did you ever figure out what was going on? It would be nice to
> know why the -rt kernels don't have any lockdep problems associated
> with the device mutexes.
Yes, it just did not happen on the systems which I tested with lockdep
enabled, but I found a box where it triggered.
Sorry should have tested better. :(
Thanks,
tglx
--
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