[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110402011202.GC25424@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2011 10:12:03 +0900
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To: Robert Rosengren <robert.rosengren@...ricsson.com>
Cc: Liam Girdwood <lrg@...mlogic.co.uk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Bengt Jonsson <bengt.g.jonsson@...ricsson.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: recursive locking detected
On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 12:04:17PM +0200, Robert Rosengren wrote:
> "possible recursive locking detected"-warnings are issued when a
> regulator has specified supply regulator. Both when enabling and
> disabling regulators uses recursive call chains for notify the supply
> regulators. This is due to locking mutexes of the same lock class,
> i.e. the locks reside in the regulator_dev struct.
There's actually a race here reported by David Brown in the past week
when working with supplies so the lock warning is probably a real issue
which should be fixed rather than overriding the warning. Search the
list for the past week or so for the details.
> +/* locks held by regulator_enable()
> + * lock_sublevel should always be 0, only used for recursive calls.
> + */
> +static int _regulator_enable(struct regulator_dev *rdev,
> + int lock_sublevel)
This comment is inaccurate (and if it were then obviously sublevel
wouldn't be needed).
--
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