[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101221125934.GA13285@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 13:59:36 +0100
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>
Cc: Andy Walls <awalls@...metrocast.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
nicolas.mailhot@...oste.net, Jarod Wilson <jarod@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...hat.com>,
Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [V2 PATCH] kthread_work: Make lockdep happy
Hello,
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 12:40:50PM +0800, Yong Zhang wrote:
> From: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>
> Subject: [V2 PATCH] kthread_work: Make lockdep happy
>
> spinlock in kthread_worker and wait_queue_head in kthread_work
> both should be lockdep sensible.
> So change the interface to make it suiltable for CONFIG_LOCKDEP.
>
> Reported-by: Nicolas <nicolas.mailhot@...oste.net>
> Signed-off-by: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>
> Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Andy Walls <awalls@...metrocast.net>
> ---
> Changes from V1:
> *According to Tejun, kthread_worker could be defined on stack,
> So introduce DEFINE_KTHREAD_WORKER_ONSTACK.
> *Change wrong setting to kthread_work->task. Thanks Adny for
> pointing it.
> *including some minor issue.
>
> BTW, only passed build.
If somebody can confirm this makes lockdep behave correctly, I'll
route it through the wq tree.
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