> It look like a false positive to me, but really, for a patchset of > this complexity and maturity I cannot fathom how it could have > escaped any lockdep testing.
the code tries to implement per cpu spinlocks, or rather it tries to bring back the brlocks from way past.... cute. we can educate lockdep about this quite easily; but isn't there some primitive already in existence that we can use? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
