linux-kernel - Re: Deadlock scenario in regulator core

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1301050756.2250.190.camel@laptop>
Date:	Fri, 25 Mar 2011 11:59:16 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	David Collins <collinsd@...eaurora.org>,
	Liam Girdwood <lrg@...mlogic.co.uk>,
	linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: Deadlock scenario in regulator core

On Wed, 2011-03-23 at 10:42 +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> 
> That's helpful, though it doesn't really say anything about how one
> picks subclass? 

With care ;-)

Its most useful for recursive use of the same lock class, typically we
only have 2 locks held and we can use the SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING thing.
Some few sites use subclasses for larger things, some are ok, some are
dubious (ext4 comes to mind).

And like said in the other email, be careful with lockdep annotations,
you can actually annotate real deadlocks away.

--
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/