[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAM_iQpU+d4bbtN_oE+G0CaWmeSbBEyS1Wuc7s1vK36gGrcYzjQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2020 12:41:25 -0800
From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To: Taehee Yoo <ap420073@...il.com>
Cc: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
syzbot <syzbot+aaa6fa4949cc5d9b7b25@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAINS too low!
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 7:09 AM Taehee Yoo <ap420073@...il.com> wrote:
> Yes, I fully agree with this.
> If we calculate the subclass for lock_nested() very well, I think we
> might use static lockdep key for addr_list_lock_key too. I think
> "dev->upper_level" and "dev->lower_level" might be used as subclass.
> These values are updated recursively in master/nomaster operation.
Great! I will think about this too. At least I will remove the other keys
for net-next.
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists