linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] pinctrl: single: Use a separate lockdep class

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 1 Dec 2015 15:06:13 +0100
From:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
	Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>
Cc:	"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] pinctrl: single: Use a separate lockdep class

On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 6:20 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com> wrote:

> The single pinmux controller can be cascaded to the other interrupt
> controllers. Hence when propagating wake-up settings to its parent
> interrupt controller, there's possiblity of detecting possible recursive
> locking and getting lockdep warning.
>
> This patch avoids this false positive by using a separate lockdep class
> for this single pinctrl interrupts.
>
> Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
> Cc: linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org
> Suggested-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>

I need Tony's ACK on this patch before applying.

Is it a regression that needs to go into fixes?

Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
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/