Hi,
On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 13:51 +0200, ext Jean Delvare wrote:
> > if (in_atomic() || irqs_disabled()) {
> > - ret = mutex_trylock(&adap->bus_lock);
> > + ret = rt_mutex_trylock(&adap->bus_lock);
> > if (!ret)
> > /* I2C activity is ongoing. */
> > return -EAGAIN;
> > } else {
> > - mutex_lock_nested(&adap->bus_lock, adap->level);
> > + rt_mutex_lock(&adap->bus_lock);
>
> Hmm, rt_mutex doesn't handle locking model validation as regular
> mutexes have? Looks like a regression to me.
>
There seems to be no rtmutex_lock_nested in include/linux/rtmutex.h.
CONFIG_DEBUG_RT_MUTEXES help says this:
This allows rt mutex semantics violations and rt mutex related
deadlocks (lockups) to be detected and reported automatically.
I don't know if this includes the same stuff as lockdep does.
But as the context is stripped away (adap-level) it's safe to assume
that atleast some functionality is also stripped. Thus it is a
regression.
-- Mika
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
