On 03/25/2013 05:42 PM, Michel Lespinasse wrote: > On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Rik van Riel <r...@surriel.com> wrote: >> > On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 16:21:22 -0400 >> > Sasha Levin <sasha.le...@oracle.com> wrote: >> > >>> >> On 03/20/2013 03:55 PM, Rik van Riel wrote: >>>> >> > Include lkml in the CC: this time... *sigh* >>>> >> > ---8<--- >>>> >> > >>>> >> > This series makes the sysv semaphore code more scalable, >>>> >> > by reducing the time the semaphore lock is held, and making >>>> >> > the locking more scalable for semaphore arrays with multiple >>>> >> > semaphores. >>> >> >>> >> Hi Rik, >>> >> >>> >> I'm getting the following false positives from lockdep: >> > >> > Does this patch fix it? > I'll be surprised if it does, because we don't actually have single > depth nesting here... > Adding Peter & Ingo for advice about how to proceed > (the one solution I know would involve using arch_spin_lock() directly > to bypass the lockdep checks, but there's got to be a better way...)
Yeah, it did not. Thanks, Sasha -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
