On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 2:07 AM, Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 :( Greg, do you have proposals about the class_interface removal before this thread? or ideas? --- Regards dave -- 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
