Re: [PATCH 0/3] Synaptics - fix lockdep warnings

[Dmitry Torokhov]

On 9/14/06, Jiri Kosina <jikos@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2006, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>
> > Yes, this is much, much better. Could you please tell me if depth should
> > be a true depth or just an unique number? The reason I am asking is that
> > I hope to get rid of parent/child pointers in serio (they were
> > introduced when driver core could not handle recursive addition/removing
> > of devices on the same bus).
>
> I am afraid you can't generate just any unique number to represent the
> lock class, as the lockdep validator fails if the class number is higher
> than MAX_LOCKDEP_SUBCLASSES, which is by default 8.
>
> Regarding the patches - should I submit them upstream, or will you?

Not yet ;) Is there a way to hide the depth in the spinlock/mutex
structure itself so that initialization code could do
spin_lock_init_nested() and spare the rest of the code from that
knowledge?

--
Dmitry
-
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/