[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20180720083914.1950-1-peda@axentia.se>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 10:39:12 +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 v4 0/2] Fix lockdep warning with nested instances of i2c-mux
Hi!
Ping. This is almost a resend of v3, but I added tested-by tags from
John and unwrapped a line in the commit message, so it's a v4.
How is this going to find its way to Linus? I can move this through
the i2c-mux tree, but I obviously need a tag for patch 1/2 for that...
Cheers,
Peter
Changes since v3 https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/5/24/994
- Added Tested-by tags from John.
- Unwrapped commit message for patch 2/2.
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