On 03/25/2013 05:51 PM, Michel Lespinasse wrote: > On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Michel Lespinasse <wal...@google.com> wrote: >> 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...) > > Maybe spin_lock_nest_lock() can help too. I'm not sure, the feature is > undocumented. >
I think we should name the locks properly (using 'key') and initialize their lockdep_map using lockdep_init_map instead of letting spin_lock pass the "&sma->sem_base[i].lock" as name. 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/
