Re: [PATCH 0/3] Synaptics - fix lockdep warnings

[Jiri Kosina]

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:

> I understand what Ingo is saying about detecting deadlocks across the 
> pool of locks of the same class not waiting till they really clash, it 
> is really useful. I also want to make my code as independent of lockdep 
> as possible. Having a speciall marking on the locks themselves (done 
> upon creation) instead of altering call sites is the cleanest way IMHO. 
> Can we have a flag in the lock structure that would tell lockdep that it 
> is OK for the given lock to be taken several times (i.e. the locks are 
> really on the different objects)? This would still allow to detect 
> incorrect locking across different classes.

Yes, but unfortunately marking the lock as 'can-be-taken-multiple-times' 
is weaker than using the nested locking provided by lockdep.

i.e. if you mark a lock this way, it opens door for having deadlock, which 
won't be detected by lockdep. This will happen if the code, by mistake, 
really takes the _very same_ lock twice. lockdep will not be able to 
detect this, when the lock is marked in a way you propose, but is able to 
detect this when using the nested semantics.

-- 
JiKos.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/