RE: 2.6.17-mm1 - possible recursive locking detected

[Brown, Len]

>> Nothing jumps out at me as incorrect above, so 
>> at this point it looks like a CONFIG_LOCKDEP artifact --
>> but lets ask the experts:-)
>
>Yes, lockdep uses the callsite of spin_lock_init() to detect 
>the "type" of
>a lock.
>
>But the ACPI obfuscation layers use the same spin_lock_init() site to
>initialise two not-the-same locks, so lockdep decides those 
>two locks are of the same "type" and gets confused.

interesting definition of "type".  I guess it works
in practice or others would be complaining...

>We had earlier decided to remove that ACPI code which kmallocs a single
>spinlock.  When that's done, lockdep will become unconfused.

Yes, that change is already on the way.
The key thing here is that our recent changes in
how the locks are _used_ is okay -- and I think it is.

thanks,
-Len
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/