Dave Young wrote, On 01/18/2008 10:07 AM: > On Jan 18, 2008 4:23 PM, Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 03:48:02PM +0800, Dave Young wrote: ... >>> 1) Using CLASS_NORMAL/CLASS_PARENT/CLASS_CHILD will be enough. >>> or >>> 2) Simply add SINGLE_LEVEL_NESTING in class_device_add and other >>> class_device functions because it is the only possible nest-lock place >>> as I know. Dave, after looking a bit at this it seems you could be "mostly" right with this 2). Maybe I've missed something (I didn't verify this yet), but it looks like +1 level (SINGLE_LEVEL_NESTING) could be needed in: class_device_add() (as you did), but probably also class_device_del() and class_device_destroy(). ...But, there seems to be "little" problem, if there is used this recursion with: class_intf->add()/remove() in class_device_add()/del()?! Then Kay is right about possibility of deeper nesting. If this path is really used, and any of these class_device_* functions with locking are called, then this patch couldn't work like this. So, there is a question: how deep nesting is currently used here? 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/
