On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 04:16:20PM +0000, Jon Maloy wrote:
> Regards
> ///jon
>
> Jarek Poplawski wrote:
>
> >
> >I know lockdep is sometimes
> >too careful but nevertheless some change is needed
> >to fix a real bug or give additional information
> >to lockdep.
> >
> >
> I don't know lockdep well enough yet, but I will try to find out if that
> is possible.
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);
Cheers,
Jarek P.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
