On 12/01/2017 05:02 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 02:00:33PM -0500, Jason Baron wrote: >> You could leave the annotation and do something like: >> s/ep->lock/ep->wq->lock. And then that would remove the ep->lock saving >> a bit of space. > > Looks like this isn't going to work due to ep_poll_safewake taking > another waitqueue lock. If we had a strict lock order it might work, > but the mess in ep_call_nested makes me fear it doesn't. > hmmm...I'm not sure how this suggestion would change the locking rules from what we currently have. Right now, we use ep->lock, if we remove that and use ep->wq->lock instead, there is just a 1-to-1 mapping there that has not changed, since ep->wq->lock currently is completely not being used. Thanks, -Jason
