[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y+pWhyFJeE93nlWd@rowland.harvard.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2023 10:25:59 -0500
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
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 Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 10:24:13AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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.
Ah, this is news to me. Is this sort of thing documented somewhere?
Alan Stern
Powered by blists - more mailing lists