Peter, Thanks for this clear answer.
Remy 2007/12/8, Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 21:33 +0100, Remy Bohmer wrote: > > > Which problems? I did not see any special things, it looked rather > > straight forward. What have I overlooked? > > On suspend it locks the whole device tree, this means it has 'unbounded' > nesting and holds an 'unbounded' number of locks. Neither things are > easy to annotate (remember that mutex_lock_nested can handle up to 8 > nestings and current->held_locks has a max of 30). > > In fact, converting this will be the hardest part, it would require > reworking the locking and introduction of a hard limit on the device > tree depth - this might upset some people, but I suspect that 16 or 24 > should be deep enough for pretty much anything. Of course, if people > prove me wrong, I'll have to reconsider. The up-side of the locking > scheme I'm thinking of will be that locking the whole tree will only > take 'depth' number of opterations vs the total number of tree elements. > > > > -- > 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/ > -- 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/
