On Wed, 2007-10-24 at 00:18 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Yes, which is what I think is happening in this particular case. More > precisely, we get pm_mutex while holding a buffer mutex, so lockdep is warning > when we get another buffer mutex afterwards. Precisely. That's why I copied Greg on the second mail :) It seems that sysfs already uses nested locks, but that only protects against lockdep reporting a false positive for nested locks, not this case. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
