Re: [Patch 0/2] sysfs: fix s_active lockdep warning

[Alan Stern]

On Fri, 5 Feb 2010, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> Right, so this device stuff is much more complicated than I was led to
> believe ;-)

Haven't I told you all along that tree-structured locking is
complicated?  :-)

> So the device core doesn't know, so how are you guys making sure there
> really are no deadlocks hidden in there somewhere?

In the code I've seen, deadlocks are avoided by always taking the locks
in the same order.  But who knows?  Maybe there _are_ some hidden
deadlocks lurking.  For now we can't rely on lockdep to find them,
though, because it gets sidetracked by all the false positives.

> >  But for now perhaps a compromise is in
> > order.  We could make the switch from semaphores to mutexes while
> > avoiding lockdep issues by assigning the device mutexes to a
> > "don't-verify" class.  Is there such a thing, or could it be added?
> 
> Something like the below might work, but it should go along with a
> checkpatch.pl mod to ensure we don't grow any new users (just don't feel
> like brushing up my perl fu enough to actually make sense of that
> script)

I'll try it out in the next few days, and if it looks good maybe the 
checkpatch maintainers can lend some assistance before it gets 
submitted.

Alan Stern

--
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/