On Tue, 20 May 2008 11:36:41 -0600
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@xxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 10:30:45AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Well what are these lockdep warnings? Normally such a warning means that
> > we have a locking bug. I _assume_ that you've determined that the warnings
> > are false-positives?
>
> Andrew, we already discussed this on the thread you started that you
> then ignored ...
rofl.
All pertinent information should be in a patch's changelog. Then this
sort of confusion will not occur.
> > The warning which Mariusz Kozlowski discovered ("Subject: Re:
> > 2.6.26-rc2-mm1: possible circular locking dependency detected") was
> > triggered by the "class semaphore to mutex" conversion and it looks
> > like a real bug to me. Would your patch prevent warnings such as that
> > one from being available to us?
>
> The problem is that you add one type of class which then adds devices
> that are of another class. This is not a bug. My proposal is to give
> each sysfs class its own lock class; Dave's is to only do it for the
> two classes he knows about that do this.
Well that sounds reasonable. I'm not sure that we should introduce
generic-looking helper infrastructure to do it, however.
Anyway I'll happily sit back and let you guys and Greg sort this one out ;)
--
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
