Re: [PATCH 0/5] lockdep: (Was: check && lockdep_no_validate)
From: Alan Stern
Date: Mon Jan 20 2014 - 13:38:00 EST
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 01/17, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Fri, 17 Jan 2014, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > Yes, sure. This change assumes that the only problem in drivers/base is
> > > dev->parent->mutex / dev->mutex dependency. If the locking is even more
> > > "broken" (wrt lockdep), we can't replace lockdep_set_novalidate_class()
> > > with lockdep_set_auto_nested().
> > I suspect it is even more "broken". But I can't point to specific
> > examples.
> > ...
> > My guess is that if your change is deployed widely, there will be
> > reports of violations. That's only a guess.
> OK, lets (try to) do this later. Let me send the changes which I hope
> should be fine in any case.
> > Still, you could go ahead and try it, just to see what happens.
> Yes, perhaps it makes sense at least to test this change and see what
> happens... We will see.
> > Also, take a look at commit 356c05d58af0. It's a similar situation
> > (not exactly the same).
> At first glance, can't __ATTR_IGNORE_LOCKDEP() use no_validate too ?
> (ignoring the fact checkpatch.pl won't be happy). This can simplify
> the code, it seems.
Well, the macro itself doesn't specify the lockdep class. That happens
implicitly in sysfs_get_active(), in the call to rwsem_acquire_read().
However, it ought to be possible to change the code so that when
ignore_lockdep(sd) returns nonzero, we end up using no_validate.
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/