Peter Zijlstra wrote, On 12/08/2007 09:50 PM:
> On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 21:33 +0100, Remy Bohmer wrote:
>
>> Which problems? I did not see any special things, it looked rather
>> straight forward. What have I overlooked?
>
> On suspend it locks the whole device tree, this means it has 'unbounded'
Peter,
Thanks for this clear answer.
Remy
2007/12/8, Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 21:33 +0100, Remy Bohmer wrote:
>
> > Which problems? I did not see any special things, it looked rather
> > straight forward. What have I overlooked?
>
> On suspend it locks the wh
On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 21:33 +0100, Remy Bohmer wrote:
> Which problems? I did not see any special things, it looked rather
> straight forward. What have I overlooked?
On suspend it locks the whole device tree, this means it has 'unbounded'
nesting and holds an 'unbounded' number of locks. Neithe
Hello Ingo,
> no, you are wrong. If you want to do complex locking, you can still do
> it: take a look at the dev->sem conversion patches from Peter which
> correctly do this. Lockdep has all the facilities for that.
> (you just dont know about them)
Ok.
> the general policy message here is: do
Hello Peter,
> And while you might not see it in-tree anymore, lockdep does help out
> tremendously while developing new code. I'm sure that without it the
> locking would be in a much worse state than it is today.
I am not arguing that, I am also convinced it has done a good job.
> I have a goo
* Remy Bohmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But... now we do not transfer the dev->sem to a mutex, because lockdep
> will start generating false positives, and thus we mask the lockdep
> error, by not converting the dev->sem to what it really is...
no, you are wrong. If you want to do complex l
On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 20:52 +0100, Remy Bohmer wrote:
> Hello Peter and Daniel,
>
> > Yeah, it are different lock instances, however by virtue of sharing the
> > same lock init site, they belong to the same lock class. Lockdep works
> > by tracking class dependancies, not instance dependancies.
>
Hello Peter and Daniel,
> Yeah, it are different lock instances, however by virtue of sharing the
> same lock init site, they belong to the same lock class. Lockdep works
> by tracking class dependancies, not instance dependancies.
The device and its parent both indeed have different
pointers/ins
On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 08:53 -0800, Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 13:16 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 00:02 +0100, Remy Bohmer wrote:
> > > Hello Peter,
> > >
> > > > > What specifically is wrong with dev->sem ?
> > > >
> > > > Nothing really, other than tha
On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 09:06 -0800, Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 18:11 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > It must be the locking in __driver_attach(), taking dev->parent->sem
> > > then taking dev->sem .. Assuming those are different structures, why
> > > does lockdep trigger?
>
On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 18:11 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > It must be the locking in __driver_attach(), taking dev->parent->sem
> > then taking dev->sem .. Assuming those are different structures, why
> > does lockdep trigger?
>
> They aren't different, parent is a struct device again.
It's di
On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 13:16 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 00:02 +0100, Remy Bohmer wrote:
> > Hello Peter,
> >
> > > > What specifically is wrong with dev->sem ?
> > >
> > > Nothing really, other than that they use semaphores to avoid lockdep :-/
> > >
> > > I think I know h
On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 00:02 +0100, Remy Bohmer wrote:
> Hello Peter,
>
> > > What specifically is wrong with dev->sem ?
> >
> > Nothing really, other than that they use semaphores to avoid lockdep :-/
> >
> > I think I know how to annotate this, after Alan Stern explained all the
> > use cases, b
13 matches
Mail list logo
