On Wed, 2007-07-04 at 14:21 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > well, in this case the lock/unlock should nest perfectly (i.e. it should > always be balanced perfectly), so indeed calling with nested==1 leads to > stricter checking. > > non-nested unlocks occur when people do stuff like: > > spin_lock(&lock1); > spin_lock(&lock2); > spin_unlock(&lock1); > spin_unlock(&lock2); > > the first unlock is not 'nested perfectly'. Now for the workqueue > dep_map this shouldnt be a legal combination, right? I don't think so, will change to use nested==1. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
