On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 09:28:45AM +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 11:39:37PM -0700, David Miller wrote: ... > > For each unique netdev type, use a different locking class. > > > > That will fix this forever, anything else is a situation specific > > band-aid (but then again isn't that what every lockdep annotation is > > :-).
Band-aid isn't probably too fair with lockdep. I think, it's very similar as declaring types of variables for a compiler, it really can't know until we tell this. And current locks' complexity is probably beyond possibility of brain analyzing, anyway. (Probably lockdep could be wiser too - at the cost of memory and speed - if each lock were treated individually). > > Yes, this is very good idea, and I wonder, why you didn't try > this yourself (after my "ignore"). I thought a little about > this, but was afraid of it's wide range. Some things - like > in vlans - should be removed then, for this to work. I'll try > to send something like this soon (but I'm not so optimistic > it will cure all or forever...). So, because of this next planned patch (I hope not later than tomorrow), my two last patches for vlan and ppp_generic shouldn't be applied - their functionality will be moved to register_netdevice. (But I think this current: "nesting" patch for ppp_generic does something different and IMHO could be useful too.) 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
