[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20180524135240.10881-1-peda@axentia.se>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 15:52:38 +0200
From: Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>, Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, Peter Chang <dpf@...gle.com>,
Deepa Dinamani <deepadinamani@...gle.com>,
John Sperbeck <jsperbeck@...gle.com>
Subject: [PATCH v3 0/2] Re: Problem: lockdep warning with nested instances of i2c-mux
Hi!
Sorry for spamming. At least I'm finding these embarrassing f$&%ups
myself, not that it helps all that much, but...
Changes since v2 https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/5/24/176
- EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rt_mutex_lock_nested) is more appropriate (the
rt_ prefix was missing).
Changes since v1 https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/5/24/93
- Further compile tests indicated a missing #define for rt_mutex_lock
with lockdep enabled, so that one is added.
- I have verified that I don't get any lockdep splat for a local i2c-mux
setup with these patches applied, and that I do without them.
Cheers,
Peter
Peter Rosin (2):
rtmutex: allow specifying a subclass for nested locking
i2c: mux: annotate the nested rt_mutex usage
drivers/i2c/i2c-core-base.c | 2 +-
drivers/i2c/i2c-mux.c | 4 ++--
include/linux/rtmutex.h | 7 +++++++
kernel/locking/rtmutex.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++----
4 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
--
2.11.0
Powered by blists - more mailing lists