Re: [Patch 0/2] sysfs: fix s_active lockdep warning

[Cong Wang]

Alan Stern wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Feb 2010, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > Right, so this device stuff is much more complicated than I was led to
> > believe ;-)
>
> Haven't I told you all along that tree-structured locking is
> complicated?  :-)
>
> > So the device core doesn't know, so how are you guys making sure there
> > really are no deadlocks hidden in there somewhere?
>
> In the code I've seen, deadlocks are avoided by always taking the locks
> in the same order.  But who knows?  Maybe there _are_ some hidden
> deadlocks lurking.  For now we can't rely on lockdep to find them,
> though, because it gets sidetracked by all the false positives.

This is almost the same with the sysfs case...

Thanks.
--
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/