Hello Peter, > And while you might not see it in-tree anymore, lockdep does help out > tremendously while developing new code. I'm sure that without it the > locking would be in a much worse state than it is today.
I am not arguing that, I am also convinced it has done a good job. > I have a good idea on how to annotate this, but not yet the time to do > so. Sounds good... > Aside from the nesting problems, the dev->sem has other problems as > well. Converting this is rather non-trivial. Which problems? I did not see any special things, it looked rather straight forward. What have I overlooked? > I'd not put it as harshly as you put it though, lockdep makes some > assumptions which can lead to false positives - By putting it this black and white, it usually helps to get all the opinions clear ;-) (By staying in the middle, everybody usually tend to agree ;-) > otoh these assumptions > often end up pointing out 'curious' locking coupled to 'curious' data > structures. And fixing up these things often leads to better and simpler > code. > The emphasis is on often, this is one of the cases where this is not so. > So while it does restain the creativity of locking it often ends up > being for the better. Ack. Kind Regards, Remy -- 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/
