Jarek Poplawski wrote:


If you are sure there is no circular locking possible
between these two functions and this entry->lock here
isn't endangered by other functions, you could try to
make lockdep "silent" like this:

       write_lock_bh(&ref_table_lock);
       if (tipc_ref_table.first_free) {
               index = tipc_ref_table.first_free;
               entry = &(tipc_ref_table.entries[index]);
               index_mask = tipc_ref_table.index_mask;
               /* take lock in case a previous user of entry still holds it */

-                spin_lock_bh(&entry->lock, );
+               local_bh_disable();
+               spin_lock_nested(&entry->lock, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);

               next_plus_upper = entry->data.next_plus_upper;
               tipc_ref_table.first_free = next_plus_upper & index_mask;
               reference = (next_plus_upper & ~index_mask) + index;
               entry->data.reference = reference;
               entry->object = object;
               if (lock != 0)
                       *lock = &entry->lock;

/* may stay as is or: */
-                spin_unlock_bh(&entry->lock);
+               spin_unlock(&entry->lock);
+               local_bh_enable();

       }
       write_unlock_bh(&ref_table_lock);


Looks like an acceptable solution. I will try this.
Thanks
///Jon

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Reply via email to