[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <559157A8.2050206@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 07:35:20 -0700
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@...omium.org>
CC: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@....samsung.com>,
Antti Palosaari <crope@....fi>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Bard Liao <bardliao@...ltek.com>,
Oder Chiou <oder_chiou@...ltek.com>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>,
alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
Anatol Pomozov <anatol.pomozov@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] regmap: add configurable lock class key for lockdep
On 6/29/2015 7:22 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:03:09PM +0800, Nicolas Boichat wrote:
>
>> regmap instances are kalloc'ed, so they cannot contain the
>> lock_class_key, which needs to be statically allocated (in .data).
>> Another option would be to preallocate a bunch of lock_class_key in
>> regmap.c, and pick from that, but that's terribly hacky...
>
> Honestly this is all starting to sound like we're having to jump through
> too many hoops for lockep (and other APIs are too from the sounds of it)
> so we should be looking at lockdep here.
lockdep assumes that there is a known lock hierarchy, at least known
to the developer.
seems like for regmap there isn't
(I would be interested to know how you avoid ABBA deadlocks btw,
can you have 2 devices, one with a hierarchy one way, and another
with the hierarchy the other way?)
--
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