On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 11:39:37PM -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 08:07:00 +0200 > > > After sending this patch I was a little confused, when next > > lockdep warning report appeared, and I thought - since this is > > not enough, this patch could be dumped. But now I changed my > > mind: there are really many possibilities of strange connections > > between locks taken from vlans, ppp (with pppoe), multicasts etc. > > - that every one possibility less is a gain here. > ... > > Of course, later, if somebody will find better solution, they could > > be removed, > > I already suggested a better fix, you ignored it.
No, I couldn't have ignored any of your suggestions (I would've written about any doubts, anyway). I simply misunderstood! I thought you mean different classes for netdevs used in vlan, and I prepared such a patch... Sorry! > > For each unique netdev type, use a different locking class. > > That will fix this forever, anything else is a situation specific > band-aid (but then again isn't that what every lockdep annotation is > :-). Yes, this is very good idea, and I wonder, why you didn't try this yourself (after my "ignore"). I thought a little about this, but was afraid of it's wide range. Some things - like in vlans - should be removed then, for this to work. I'll try to send something like this soon (but I'm not so optimistic it will cure all or forever...). Regards, Jarek P. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
