On Tue, 2019-10-08 at 21:17 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 08-10-19 15:06:13, Qian Cai wrote: > > On Tue, 2019-10-08 at 20:35 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > [...] > > > I fully agree that this class of lockdep splats are annoying especially > > > when they make the lockdep unusable but please discuss this with lockdep > > > maintainers and try to find some solution rather than go and try to > > > workaround the problem all over the place. If there are places that > > > would result in a cleaner code then go for it but please do not make the > > > code worse just because of a non existent problem flagged by a false > > > positive. > > > > It makes me wonder what make you think it is a false positive for sure. > > Because this is an early init code? Because if it were a real deadlock No, that alone does not prove it is a false positive. There are many places could generate that lock dependency but lockdep will always save the earliest one. > then your system wouldn't boot to get run with the real userspace > (remember there is zone->lock spinlock involved and that means that you > would hit hard lock after few seconds - but I feel I am repeating > myself).
