[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190226172421.GI32494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 18:24:21 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, will.deacon@....com, tj@...nel.org,
longman@...hat.com, johannes.berg@...el.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 21/23] block: Avoid that flushing triggers a lockdep
complaint
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 03:00:56PM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> @@ -472,7 +473,8 @@ struct blk_flush_queue *blk_alloc_flush_queue(struct request_queue *q,
> if (!fq)
> goto fail;
>
> - spin_lock_init(&fq->mq_flush_lock);
> + lockdep_register_key(&fq->key);
> + spin_lock_init_key(&fq->mq_flush_lock, &fq->key);
What's wrong with:
spin_lock_init(&fq->wq_flush_lock);
lockdep_register_key(&fq->key);
lockdep_set_class(&fq->wq_flush_lock, &fq->key);
?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists