Re: lockdep input layer warnings.

[Dmitry Torokhov]

On 7/10/06, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 16:29 -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> >
> > Well, you are right, the patch is in -rc1 and I see mutex_lock_nested
> > in the backtrace but for some reason it is still not happy. Again,
> > this is with pass-through Synaptics port and we first taking mutex of
> > the child device and then (going through pass-through port) trying to
> > take mutex of the parent.
>
> Ok it seems more drastic measures are needed; and a split of the
> cmd_mutex class on a per driver basis. The easiest way to do that is to
> inline the lock initialization (patch below) but to be honest I think
> the patch is a bit ugly; I considered inlining the entire function
> instead, any opinions on that?

It is ugly. Maybe we could have something like mutex_init_nolockdep()
to annotate that lockdep is confused and make it ignore such locks?

Of course there is a chance that lockdep is correct but I do not think so.

--
Dmitry
-
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/