On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > At first glance, can't __ATTR_IGNORE_LOCKDEP() use no_validate too ? > > > (ignoring the fact checkpatch.pl won't be happy). This can simplify > > > the code, it seems. > > > > Well, the macro itself doesn't specify the lockdep class. That happens > > implicitly in sysfs_get_active(), in the call to rwsem_acquire_read(). > > However, it ought to be possible to change the code so that when > > ignore_lockdep(sd) returns nonzero, we end up using no_validate. > > sysfs_dirent_init_lockdep() can check ->ignore_lockdep and do > lockdep_set_novalidate_class(). This way sysfs_ignore_lockdep() can > go away. > > I guess we could even change __ATTR_IGNORE_LOCKDEP() to initialize > ->key = __lockdep_no_validate__ and kill ->ignore_lockdep.
It's clear that you have a more thorough understanding of how sysfs and lockdep work than I do. :-) This suggestion sounds quite reasonable. Alan Stern -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
