[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5150C82B.9050006@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 17:56:59 -0400
From: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
To: Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>
CC: Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
davidlohr.bueso@...com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hhuang@...hat.com, jason.low2@...com,
lwoodman@...hat.com, chegu_vinod@...com,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, benisty.e@...il.com,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm -next] ipc,sem: fix lockdep false positive
On 03/25/2013 05:51 PM, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com> wrote:
>> I'll be surprised if it does, because we don't actually have single
>> depth nesting here...
>> Adding Peter & Ingo for advice about how to proceed
>> (the one solution I know would involve using arch_spin_lock() directly
>> to bypass the lockdep checks, but there's got to be a better way...)
>
> Maybe spin_lock_nest_lock() can help too. I'm not sure, the feature is
> undocumented.
>
I think we should name the locks properly (using 'key') and initialize their
lockdep_map using lockdep_init_map instead of letting spin_lock pass the
"&sma->sem_base[i].lock" as name.
Thanks,
Sasha
--
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