[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130312154341.GB18852@kroah.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 08:43:41 -0700
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] device: separate all subsys mutexes (was: Re: [BUG]
potential deadlock led by cpu_hotplug lock (memcg involved))
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 04:28:25PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-03-12 at 14:05 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > @@ -111,17 +111,17 @@ struct bus_type {
> > struct iommu_ops *iommu_ops;
> >
> > struct subsys_private *p;
> > + struct lock_class_key __key;
> > };
>
> Is struct bus_type constrained to static storage or can people go an
> allocate this stuff dynamically? If so, this patch is broken.
I don't think anyone is creating this dynamically, it should be static.
Why does this matter, does the lockdep code care about where the
variable is declared (heap vs. static)?
thanks,
greg k-h
--
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