Re: [PATCH] tipc: checking returns and Re: Possible Circular Lockingin TIPC

[Jon Maloy]

Jarek Poplawski wrote:

> If you are sure there is no circular locking possible
> between these two functions and this entry->lock here
> isn't endangered by other functions, you could try to
> make lockdep "silent" like this: 
>
>
>        write_lock_bh(&ref_table_lock);
>        if (tipc_ref_table.first_free) {
>                index = tipc_ref_table.first_free;
>                entry = &(tipc_ref_table.entries[index]);
>                index_mask = tipc_ref_table.index_mask;
>                /* take lock in case a previous user of entry still holds it */
>
> -                spin_lock_bh(&entry->lock, );
> +		local_bh_disable();
> +		spin_lock_nested(&entry->lock, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
>
>                next_plus_upper = entry->data.next_plus_upper;
>                tipc_ref_table.first_free = next_plus_upper & index_mask;
>                reference = (next_plus_upper & ~index_mask) + index;
>                entry->data.reference = reference;
>                entry->object = object;
>                if (lock != 0)
>                        *lock = &entry->lock;
>
> /* may stay as is or: */
> -                spin_unlock_bh(&entry->lock);
> +		spin_unlock(&entry->lock);
> +		local_bh_enable();
>
>        }
>        write_unlock_bh(&ref_table_lock);
>
>
>  
Looks like an acceptable solution. I will try this.
Thanks
///Jon

-
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/