On Jan 16, 2008 4:34 PM, Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 09:03:03AM +0800, Dave Young wrote: > ... > > The lockdep warining was posted in the below thread, actually, I have > > built and run this patced kernel for several days, there's no more > > warnings. > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/1/3/2 > > Right... But, with something like this: > > ... have_some_fun(... cls) > { > mutex_lock_nested(&cls->mutex, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING); > have_other_fun(cls); > mutex_unlock(&cls->mutex); > > } > > ... have_more_fun(...) > { > ... > > mutex_init(&cls->mutex); > > mutex_lock(&cls->mutex); > have_some_fun(cls); > mutex_unlock(&cls->mutex); > } > > probably you wouldn't get any lockdep warning too...
Sorry for late reply. Actually, I don't know much about lockdep. Could you tell how to use it properly in this scenario? > > Of course, if we know all the locking is right such proper lockdep > annotating shouldn't matter too much. (And of course this could be > improved later.) > > Regards, > Jarek P. > -- 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/