>> Nothing jumps out at me as incorrect above, so >> at this point it looks like a CONFIG_LOCKDEP artifact -- >> but lets ask the experts:-) > >Yes, lockdep uses the callsite of spin_lock_init() to detect >the "type" of >a lock. > >But the ACPI obfuscation layers use the same spin_lock_init() site to >initialise two not-the-same locks, so lockdep decides those >two locks are of the same "type" and gets confused. interesting definition of "type". I guess it works in practice or others would be complaining... >We had earlier decided to remove that ACPI code which kmallocs a single >spinlock. When that's done, lockdep will become unconfused. Yes, that change is already on the way. The key thing here is that our recent changes in how the locks are _used_ is okay -- and I think it is. thanks, -Len - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
