Re: [PATCH] workaround minor lockdep bug triggered bymm_take_all_locks

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 00:30:11 +0200
Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 02:42:28PM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > yes lockdep will only complain WHEN you take them in the wrong order
> > 
> > But you claimed you would for sure be in a deadlock at that point
> > which is generally not correct.
> 
> I already said I didn't know about that despite having spent a fair
> amount of time trying to understand why lockdep crashes systems at
> boot about an year ago. I admit I didn't understand much about it and
> reducing its computation time didn't look feasible, perhaps my fault,
> and I'm glad if Peter found a way to make it boot after 1 year.

interesting; lockdep has been working for the last.. 2 1/2 years at
least, and I don't remember seeing bugreports against it from you that
would describe it as totally non-functional.


Oh well.. seems you're rather preoccupied about it; that's ok, you're
entitled to your opinion even if I don't agree with it ;-)

-- 
If you want to reach me at my work email, use arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For development, discussion and tips for power savings, 
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
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/