On 22-01-2008 01:55, Dave Young wrote:
...
> Hi, thanks your effort. Now I think we should stop this thread and
> waiting the class_device going away :)
Sure! But, if you change your mind I'm interested in this subject.
Thanks,
Jarek P.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
> >
> > Hope the iteration patches 1-6/7 could be applied.
>
> Can you resend them again, and CC: me on all of them, with the latest
> updates, so I know what I should be reviewing this time around?
Hi, sent.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 08:55:05AM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2008 5:16 AM, Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Dave Young wrote, On 01/21/2008 09:44 AM:
> > ...
> > > I applied it in my kernel, built and run without warnings, but it need
> > > more testing.
> > > I will be ve
On Jan 22, 2008 5:16 AM, Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dave Young wrote, On 01/21/2008 09:44 AM:
> ...
> > I applied it in my kernel, built and run without warnings, but it need
> > more testing.
> > I will be very glad to see the test result about this if you could, thanks.
>
> Bad
Dave Young wrote, On 01/21/2008 09:44 AM:
...
> I applied it in my kernel, built and run without warnings, but it need
> more testing.
> I will be very glad to see the test result about this if you could, thanks.
Bad news. (Alas I won't be able to check this today.)
==
On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 04:44:36PM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
...
> I applied it in my kernel, built and run without warnings, but it need
> more testing.
> I will be very glad to see the test result about this if you could, thanks.
I'll try this of course, but alas I don't have anything such more
s
On Jan 21, 2008 4:36 PM, Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 09:43:35AM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
> ...
> > Convert the class semaphore to mutex.
> > class_interface_register/unregister use class_device_* functions, so
> > SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING added for lockdep plea
On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 09:43:35AM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
...
> Convert the class semaphore to mutex.
> class_interface_register/unregister use class_device_* functions, so
> SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING added for lockdep please in these functions.
Looks fine to me now, but... I think you forgot again
On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 09:30:21AM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 19, 2008 at 10:39:33AM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > Dave Young wrote, On 01/18/2008 10:07 AM:
> >
> > > On Jan 18, 2008 4:23 PM, Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >> On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 03:48:02PM
On Sat, Jan 19, 2008 at 10:39:33AM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> Dave Young wrote, On 01/18/2008 10:07 AM:
>
> > On Jan 18, 2008 4:23 PM, Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 03:48:02PM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >>> 1) Using CLASS_NORMAL/CLASS_P
On Sat, Jan 19, 2008 at 10:39:33AM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> Dave Young wrote, On 01/18/2008 10:07 AM:
>
> > On Jan 18, 2008 4:23 PM, Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 03:48:02PM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >>> 1) Using CLASS_NORMAL/CLASS_P
Dave Young wrote, On 01/18/2008 10:07 AM:
> On Jan 18, 2008 4:23 PM, Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 03:48:02PM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
...
>>> 1) Using CLASS_NORMAL/CLASS_PARENT/CLASS_CHILD will be enough.
>>> or
>>> 2) Simply add SINGLE_LEVEL_NESTING in
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 11:45:12AM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 08:38 +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 01:31:17PM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
> > > On Jan 18, 2008 11:18 AM, Kay Sievers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ...
> > > > Yeah, might be better to wa
On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 08:38 +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 01:31:17PM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
> > On Jan 18, 2008 11:18 AM, Kay Sievers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
> > > Yeah, might be better to wait until class_device is gone, otherwise you
> > > may need to fix stuf
On Jan 18, 2008 4:23 PM, Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 03:48:02PM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
> > On Jan 18, 2008 3:38 PM, Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
> > > IMHO, it would be nice to get the real state of current lockdep
> > > problems here t
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 09:00:34AM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 09:42:25AM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
> ...
> > After digging the class usage code again, I found that the only
> > possible double lock place is the class_interface_register/unregister
> > in which the class_d
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 03:48:02PM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
> On Jan 18, 2008 3:38 PM, Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> > IMHO, it would be nice to get the real state of current lockdep
> > problems here to figure out if there is any chance to do this right &
> > without any warning
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 09:42:25AM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
...
> After digging the class usage code again, I found that the only
> possible double lock place is the class_interface_register/unregister
> in which the class_device api could be called.
OK, but currently after using mostly:
mutex_loc
On Jan 18, 2008 3:38 PM, Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 01:31:17PM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
> > On Jan 18, 2008 11:18 AM, Kay Sievers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
> > > Yeah, might be better to wait until class_device is gone, otherwise you
> > > may need t
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 01:31:17PM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
> On Jan 18, 2008 11:18 AM, Kay Sievers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> > Yeah, might be better to wait until class_device is gone, otherwise you
> > may need to fix stuff that is just going to be removed. Your change to
> > have iterator
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 04:18:43AM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 10:28 +0800, Dave Young wrote:
> > Then what's your opinon about the lockdep warning fix? I wonder
> > whether the "soon" means we should do mutex convert after the
> > class_device going away?
>
> Yeah, might be
On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 10:28 +0800, Dave Young wrote:
> On Jan 18, 2008 9:55 AM, Kay Sievers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Jan 18, 2008 2:42 AM, Dave Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Jan 18, 2008 7:26 AM, Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jan 1
On Jan 18, 2008 9:55 AM, Kay Sievers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jan 18, 2008 2:42 AM, Dave Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Jan 18, 2008 7:26 AM, Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 09:31:55PM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > > > On Thu,
On Jan 18, 2008 2:42 AM, Dave Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jan 18, 2008 7:26 AM, Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 09:31:55PM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 02:57:36PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 17 Jan 20
On Jan 17, 2008 11:16 PM, Alan Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008, Dave Young wrote:
>
> > > Your meaning isn't clear. Do you mean that your patch doesn't generate
> > > any lockdep warnings at all? Or do you mean that it generates a single
> > > lockdep warning at boot time a
On Jan 18, 2008 7:26 AM, Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 09:31:55PM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 02:57:36PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > On Thu, 17 Jan 2008, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:16:30AM
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 09:31:55PM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 02:57:36PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Jan 2008, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:16:30AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 17 Jan 2008, Dave Young wrote:
> > >
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 09:31:55PM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 02:57:36PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
...
> > If I recall correctly the nature of the warning was that a method
> > routine for one class (called with the class's mutex held) was creating
> > a second class and
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 01:11:01PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
...
> I've known Greg to make lots of mistakes :)
Right! Above is one example...
> I don't remember ever saying that the "code is correct with the lockdep
> warnings", I think I said, "Make sure there are no lockdep warnings with
> any conv
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 02:57:36PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > On the other hand, according to Greg the code is OK, so if there are any
> > such warnings they simply have to be false! (...Unless you trust lockdep
> > more?!)
>
> It's not a matter of t
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 02:57:36PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:16:30AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > On Thu, 17 Jan 2008, Dave Young wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Your meaning isn't clear. Do you mean that your patch doesn't
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:16:30AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Jan 2008, Dave Young wrote:
> >
> > > > Your meaning isn't clear. Do you mean that your patch doesn't generate
> > > > any lockdep warnings at all? Or do you mean that it gen
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:16:30AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008, Dave Young wrote:
>
> > > Your meaning isn't clear. Do you mean that your patch doesn't generate
> > > any lockdep warnings at all? Or do you mean that it generates a single
> > > lockdep warning at boot time and
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008, Dave Young wrote:
> > Your meaning isn't clear. Do you mean that your patch doesn't generate
> > any lockdep warnings at all? Or do you mean that it generates a single
> > lockdep warning at boot time and then no more warnings afterward?
>
> I means the latter one.
That's
On Jan 17, 2008 4:38 PM, Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 17-01-2008 02:17, Dave Young wrote:
> > 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
On 17-01-2008 02:17, Dave Young wrote:
> 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 sever
On Jan 16, 2008 11:27 PM, Alan Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, 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
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.
> >
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 10:27:54AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, 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
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, 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
Your meaning isn't clear. Do you mean that your patch doesn't generate
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:
... ha
On Jan 15, 2008 9:56 PM, Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 05:15:27PM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
> > Convert the class semaphore to mutex.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dave Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > ---
> > drivers/base/class.c | 38 +++-
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 05:15:27PM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
> Convert the class semaphore to mutex.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dave Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> ---
> drivers/base/class.c | 38 +++---
> drivers/base/core.c| 18 --
> include/lin
Convert the class semaphore to mutex.
Signed-off-by: Dave Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
drivers/base/class.c | 38 +++---
drivers/base/core.c| 18 --
include/linux/device.h |3 ++-
3 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
Convert the class semaphore to mutex.
Signed-off-by: Dave Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
drivers/base/class.c | 38 +++---
drivers/base/core.c| 18 --
include/linux/device.h |3 ++-
3 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
45 matches
Mail list logo
