On Sat, 29 Dec 2007, David Brownell wrote:
> > There's no way to remove these, which means there's no way to prevent
> > lockdep from issuing a warning.
> There may be no *efficient* way to do that. If it tracked every lock
> individually these false alarms could go away; but that would increas
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 02:57:24 +0100 Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sorry, I don't use git tools now. Could you tell me how to fix it?
> > thanks in advance.
>
> Just ensure that the kernel builds after each applied patch.
And that it runs ;)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send t
On Jan 3, 2008 12:08 AM, Alan Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Jan 2008, Greg KH wrote:
>
> > For most cases, yes, I agree with this, but due to the lockdep issues
> > that occur here, and the whole mess with the suspend path and locking
> > the device tree, that has been hashed out man
On Tue, 1 Jan 2008, Greg KH wrote:
> For most cases, yes, I agree with this, but due to the lockdep issues
> that occur here, and the whole mess with the suspend path and locking
> the device tree, that has been hashed out many times in the past, I am
> interested in trying to see if there is any
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Dave Young wrote:
> > Around a month ago I had a discussion with Peter Zijlstra about the
> > problems in converting the device semaphores to mutexes; you may be
> > able to find it in the LKML archives. Doing the conversion while
> > keeping lockdep happy is a very hard probl
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 01:39:38PM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> On 02-01-2008 08:00, Greg KH wrote:
> ...
> > If no one has noticed any issues in this area, [...]
BTW, if 'we' are sure there are no issues, and only lockdep is not
clever enough yet, why not do such a change partially, e.g. with
On 02-01-2008 08:00, Greg KH wrote:
...
> If no one has noticed any issues in this area, [...]
...Could also mean there are hidden issues, so it doesn't look like
very convincing argument.
...Unless after the change there will be found no hidden issues,
then, of course, it looks like convincing e
From: Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 23:00:08 -0800
> I'm very open to potential patches to do this, just don't ignore the
> issues that others have run into in the past when attempting this.
Fair enough.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel
On Tue, Jan 01, 2008 at 09:25:01PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 21:18:28 -0800
>
> > But is the usage of this semaphore in the class code really a problem?
> > Has it been seen to cause issues anywhere? Does it show up on any
> > benchmark
On Jan 2, 2008 1:18 PM, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 08:54:53AM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
> > On Dec 30, 2007 1:07 AM, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Dec 29, 2007 at 03:07:30PM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
> > > > On Dec 29, 2007 1:06 PM, Dave Youn
From: Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 21:18:28 -0800
> But is the usage of this semaphore in the class code really a problem?
> Has it been seen to cause issues anywhere? Does it show up on any
> benchmarks as being something that really needs to be replaced?
It's a question of
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 08:54:53AM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
> On Dec 30, 2007 1:07 AM, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 29, 2007 at 03:07:30PM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
> > > On Dec 29, 2007 1:06 PM, Dave Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Dec 29, 2007 12:42 PM
On Dec 30, 2007 6:01 AM, Alan Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 29 Dec 2007, Dave Young wrote:
>
> > On Dec 29, 2007 1:06 PM, Dave Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Dec 29, 2007 12:42 PM, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Dec 29, 2007 at 10:36:49AM +0800, D
On Dec 30, 2007 1:07 AM, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 29, 2007 at 03:07:30PM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
> > On Dec 29, 2007 1:06 PM, Dave Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Dec 29, 2007 12:42 PM, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Dec 29, 2007 at 10:
On Sat, 2007-12-29 at 22:42 -0800, David Brownell wrote:
> On Saturday 29 December 2007, Alan Stern wrote:
> > There's no way to remove these, which means there's
> > no way to prevent lockdep from issuing a warning.
>
> There may be no *efficient* way to do that. If it tracked
> every lock in
On Saturday 29 December 2007, Alan Stern wrote:
> lockdep warns whenever a task acquires a mutex while holding another
> mutex of the same kind (that is, the same member in another structure
> of the same type). But there are lots of places where the kernel needs
> to acquire dev->sem for one devi
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007, Dave Young wrote:
> On Dec 29, 2007 1:06 PM, Dave Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Dec 29, 2007 12:42 PM, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Dec 29, 2007 at 10:36:49AM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > The full boot dmesg with lockdep output i
On Sat, Dec 29, 2007 at 03:07:30PM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
> On Dec 29, 2007 1:06 PM, Dave Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Dec 29, 2007 12:42 PM, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Dec 29, 2007 at 10:36:49AM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > The full boot dmesg w
On Dec 29, 2007 1:06 PM, Dave Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Dec 29, 2007 12:42 PM, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 29, 2007 at 10:36:49AM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
> > > >
> > > The full boot dmesg with lockdep output is out, there's one warnings in
> > > it :
> >
> > P
On Dec 29, 2007 12:42 PM, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 29, 2007 at 10:36:49AM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
> > >
> > The full boot dmesg with lockdep output is out, there's one warnings in it :
>
> Please fix that warning before the next repost of these patches (along
> with fixing
On Sat, Dec 29, 2007 at 10:36:49AM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
> >
> The full boot dmesg with lockdep output is out, there's one warnings in it :
Please fix that warning before the next repost of these patches (along
with fixing the problem of them not being able to be applied and
successfully built
>From your previous mail
>You need to actually boot the kernel to get effective reports from
>lockdep, it'll build just fine.
I will post the config file and dmesg with lockdep messages after a while.
On Dec 29, 2007 9:57 AM, Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2007-12-29 at 09:
On Sat, 2007-12-29 at 09:52 +0800, Dave Young wrote:
> Hm, actually it's not so hard, but If I resend the 12 patches seems
> like spam to lkml :-).
>
> Of cource, if you all don't mind and it is really needed, I will do that.
As it stands now I'm quite convinced these patches will make lockdep
On Dec 29, 2007 9:42 AM, Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2007-12-29 at 09:36 +0800, Dave Young wrote:
> > On Dec 29, 2007 9:29 AM, Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm pretty sure you didn't boot that kernel with lockdep enabled.
> > Yes, I will try
On Sat, 2007-12-29 at 09:36 +0800, Dave Young wrote:
> On Dec 29, 2007 9:29 AM, Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I'm pretty sure you didn't boot that kernel with lockdep enabled.
> Yes, I will try rebuild with lockdep and test.
I'll fail miserably :-)
>From your other mail:
On Dec 29, 2007 9:36 AM, Dave Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 29, 2007 9:29 AM, Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I'm pretty sure you didn't boot that kernel with lockdep enabled.
> Yes, I will try rebuild with lockdep and test.
No, I checked the config , lockdep is
On Dec 29, 2007 9:29 AM, Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> I'm pretty sure you didn't boot that kernel with lockdep enabled.
Yes, I will try rebuild with lockdep and test.
>
> Also, most, if not all, of your patches miss a patch description.
Does the description really needed for it
I'm pretty sure you didn't boot that kernel with lockdep enabled.
Also, most, if not all, of your patches miss a patch description.
--
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
Signed-off-by: Dave Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
drivers/base/bus.c| 20 ++--
drivers/base/class.c | 22 +++---
drivers/base/core.c | 16
drivers/base/dd.c | 38 +++---
drivers/base/po
29 matches
Mail list logo
