[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y+oBveWO2z6xdTW/@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2023 10:24:13 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>,
Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Coly Li <colyli@...e.de>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
USB list <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] drivers/core: Replace lockdep_set_novalidate_class()
with unique class keys
On Sun, Feb 12, 2023 at 10:23:44AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> Provided it acquires the parent device's lock first, this is
> utterly safe no matter what order the children are locked in. Try
> telling that to lockdep!
mutex_lock_next_lock(child->lock, parent->lock) is there to express this
exact pattern, it allows taking multiple child->lock class locks (in any
order) provided parent->lock is held.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists