On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:35:24 +0300, Mika Kuoppala wrote:
> 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.
OK. This is the only place where the adapter's nesting level is used,
so if we apply your patch, we might as well get rid of it.
--
Jean Delvare
--
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
