On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 09:31:55PM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 02:57:36PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: ... > > If I recall correctly the nature of the warning was that a method > > routine for one class (called with the class's mutex held) was creating > > a second class and locking that class's mutex. In principle this is > > perfectly legal and should be allowed for arbitrary depths of nesting, > > even though it is the sort of thing lockdep is currently unable to > > handle.
BTW, Dave, if it's only about one such "second class" here, then it shouldn't be so hard to try this one more level of nesting. I think, the real problem for lockdep starts when there are more such "second classes", but it's probably in another place. You could also have a look at e.g. enum_inode_i_mutex_lock_class in include/linux/fs.h and fh_lock_nested() in include/linux/nfsd/nfsfh.h, and maybe define similar enum for this. 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/
