On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 09:27:59AM +0800, Dave Young wrote: > On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 6:23 PM, Matthew Wilcox <matthew@xxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 01:20:33PM +0800, Dave Young wrote: > >> On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > On 5/15/08, Matthew Wilcox <matthew@xxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 05:01:01PM +0800, Dave Young wrote: > >> >>> > The classes are different here, first sdev_class, then sg_sysfs_class > >> >> > >> >> Oh ... right. I misread scsi_register_interface as > >> >> class_register_interface. > >> >> > >> >>> Greg, what about using mutex_lock_nested to silence lockdep? They are > >> >>> the only usage of class->mutex out of class.c > >> >> > >> >> I don't see how we prove that, for example, you can never take the > >> >> sg_sysfs_class mutex and then take the sdev_class mutex. > >> > > >> > Sorry for my delay. AFAIK, there's no this kind of use. > > > > The question isn't whether there is or isn't this kind of use right now. > > The question is whether there might be this kind of use in the future, > > and if there is, whether we'd like lockdep to warn us. > > In the future, IMHO, the class_interface should go away just as > class_device. If that happened this problem would going away as well. Patches gladly accepted to do this, but what you will end up with is something just called a different name, yet doing the same functionality, so you are back at square one :( thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
