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 to figure out if there is any chance to do this right & > > > without any warnings with current lockdep. If I got it right from > > > earlier threads it might be impossible with USB, at least. > > > > I don't think so, usb doesn't be affected by struct class mutex, they > > only use the lock of struct device. As I replied before, the lockdep > > issue exist only between class_interface and class_device. > > OK, but I've meant possibility of changing their own semaphores later. > > > > So, since I think these nesting levels seem to be wrong in 7/7 patch, > > > maybe it's better to exclude it from this patchset, and to try this as > > > testing for some time. > > > > I may file the updated patch with more nesting changes and test it of > > course. Actually I should have done it, thanks. > ... > > 1) Using CLASS_NORMAL/CLASS_PARENT/CLASS_CHILD will be enough. > > or > > 2) Simply add SINGLE_LEVEL_NESTING in class_device_add and other > > class_device functions because it is the only possible nest-lock place > > as I know. > > If SINGLE_LEVEL_NESTING is enough? (means 2 levels total)
I think so. > > I think you should more care about real (logical) relations here, than > what's enough to get rid of lockdep warnings. You are quite right, thanks. > > Since there are not so much of these changes, you can try both > variants. Will do. >I'll be glad to look at this - maybe I'll mangage to figure > out BTW, what it's all about... > > Jarek P. > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/