On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 09:03:03AM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
...
> The lockdep warining was posted in the below thread, actually, I have
> built and run this patced kernel for several days, there's no more
> warnings.
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/1/3/2
Right... But, with something like this:
... have_some_fun(... cls)
{
mutex_lock_nested(&cls->mutex, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
have_other_fun(cls);
mutex_unlock(&cls->mutex);
}
... have_more_fun(...)
{
...
mutex_init(&cls->mutex);
mutex_lock(&cls->mutex);
have_some_fun(cls);
mutex_unlock(&cls->mutex);
}
probably you wouldn't get any lockdep warning too...
Of course, if we know all the locking is right such proper lockdep
annotating shouldn't matter too much. (And of course this could be
improved later.)
Regards,
Jarek P.
--
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/
