On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 13:16 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
quoted text
> 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, but I haven't come around to implementing it. Hope to do that
> > > soonish.
> > 
> > I was looking for an easy semaphore I could convert to a mutex, and I
> > ran into one that was widely spread and interesting, and which seemed
> > quite doable at first sight.
> > So, I started working on it, but was forgotten this discussion, (until
> > Daniel made me remember it this afternoon). So, I (stupid me ;-) )
> > tried to convert dev->sem...
> > 
> > After doing the monkey part of the conversion I can boot the kernel
> > completely on X86 and ARM, and everything works fine, except after
> > enabling lockdep, lockdep starts complaining...
> > 
> > Is this the problem you were pointing at?
> 
> Yeah, one of the interesting nestings :-)

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?

Daniel

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