On Sat, Jan 19, 2008 at 10:39:33AM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > 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().
Yes, I think so too. > > ...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? Currently I couldn't find such use in kernel source. IMO, drivers would not use it like this in the future because class_device will going away soon. > > 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/
