[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1351806702.19172.104.camel@misato.fc.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 15:51:42 -0600
From: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>, ZhangRui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Tang Chen <tangchen@...fujitsu.com>, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
jiang.liu@...wei.com, izumi.taku@...fujitsu.com,
isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] Improve container_notify_cb() to support
container hot-remove.
> > >> Hi Yinghai,
> > >>
> > >> Per the following thread, the code seems to be written in this way to
> > >> allocate a separate lock_class_key for each work queue. It should have
> > >> had some comment to explain this, though.
> > >>
> > >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2009/12/13/304
> > >
> > > The code has evolved since then, however, so that it doesn't make sense
> > > any more.
> > >
> >
> > oh, no, that commit should not be reverted. instead we should add some
> > comment for it...
> >
> > that mean : three path, will have three separated static lock dep key
> > from every INIT_WORK.
>
> I see.
>
> OK, I'll drop the patch removing it.
>
> What about the following comment:
>
> "To prevent lockdep from complaining unnecessarily, make sure that there
> is a different static lockdep key created for each workqueue by using
> INIT_WORK for each of them separately."
Looks good to me.
Thanks,
-Toshi
>
> Thanks,
> Rafael
>
>
--
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