[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171201220239.GA32542@lst.de>
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2017 23:02:39 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: waitqueue lockdep annotation
On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 02:00:33PM -0500, Jason Baron wrote:
> You could leave the annotation and do something like:
> s/ep->lock/ep->wq->lock. And then that would remove the ep->lock saving
> a bit of space.
Looks like this isn't going to work due to ep_poll_safewake taking
another waitqueue lock. If we had a strict lock order it might work,
but the mess in ep_call_nested makes me fear it doesn't.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists