[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201107032259.05722.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2011 22:59:05 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Andrea Righi <andrea@...terlinux.com>
Cc: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Maciej Rutecki <maciej.rutecki@...il.com>,
Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ACPI: fix acpi_power_off lockdep splat
On Sunday, July 03, 2011, Andrea Righi wrote:
> Implement acpi_os_create_lock() as a C-preprocessor macro to suppress
> lockdep false positive.
>
> When lockdep is enabled the spin_lock_init macro stringifies it's
> argument and uses that as a name for the lock in the debugging.
>
> By executing spin_lock_init in a macro the key changes from "lock" for
> all locks to the actual argument of acpi_os_create_lock()
> ("&acpi_gbl_global_lock_pending_lock", "&acpi_gbl_gpe_lock" or
> "&acpi_gbl_hardware_lock" for now).
>
> This fixes:
> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38152
>
> ChangeLog (v1 -> v2):
> - avoid to call spin_lock_init multiple times on the same lock
> - rewrite patch description (thanks to Florian for providing a better
> description of the patch)
>
> Reported-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
> CC: Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>
> Signed-off-by: Andrea Righi <andrea@...terlinux.com>
> ---
> drivers/acpi/osl.c | 3 +--
> include/acpi/acpiosxf.h | 12 +++++++++++-
> 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/osl.c b/drivers/acpi/osl.c
> index 52ca964..4c985d3 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/osl.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/osl.c
> @@ -1336,14 +1336,13 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(acpi_resources_are_enforced);
> * Create and initialize a spinlock.
> */
> acpi_status
> -acpi_os_create_lock(acpi_spinlock *out_handle)
> +__acpi_os_create_lock(acpi_spinlock *out_handle)
> {
I would rename this to acpi_os_allocate_lock() or acpi_os_alloc_lock(),
so that it doesn't suggest the lock is initialized by this function.
Hmm. There's one more thing we need to take into account here. Namely,
include/acpi/acpiosxf.h is used by other OSes, so we shouldn't put
Linux-specific stuff into it.
I'm not sure how to work around that at the moment.
Thanks,
Rafael
> spinlock_t *lock;
>
> lock = ACPI_ALLOCATE(sizeof(spinlock_t));
> if (!lock)
> return AE_NO_MEMORY;
> - spin_lock_init(lock);
> *out_handle = lock;
>
> return AE_OK;
> diff --git a/include/acpi/acpiosxf.h b/include/acpi/acpiosxf.h
> index a756bc8..4a0385d 100644
> --- a/include/acpi/acpiosxf.h
> +++ b/include/acpi/acpiosxf.h
> @@ -99,7 +99,17 @@ acpi_os_table_override(struct acpi_table_header *existing_table,
> * Spinlock primitives
> */
> acpi_status
> -acpi_os_create_lock(acpi_spinlock *out_handle);
> +__acpi_os_create_lock(acpi_spinlock *out_handle);
> +
> +#define acpi_os_create_lock(__handle) \
> +({ \
> + acpi_status ret; \
> + \
> + ret = __acpi_os_create_lock(__handle); \
> + if (ret == AE_OK) \
> + spin_lock_init(*(__handle)); \
> + ret; \
> +})
>
> void acpi_os_delete_lock(acpi_spinlock handle);
>
>
--
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