On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 10:40:20AM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > 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. Ok, I'm confused, where is the sysfs issue here? thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
