Re: [PATCH -mm -next] ipc,sem: fix lockdep false positive

[Sasha Levin]

On 03/25/2013 05:51 PM, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Michel Lespinasse <walken@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I'll be surprised if it does, because we don't actually have single
>> depth nesting here...
>> Adding Peter & Ingo for advice about how to proceed
>> (the one solution I know would involve using arch_spin_lock() directly
>> to bypass the lockdep checks, but there's got to be a better way...)
> 
> Maybe spin_lock_nest_lock() can help too. I'm not sure, the feature is
> undocumented.
> 

I think we should name the locks properly (using 'key') and initialize their
lockdep_map using lockdep_init_map instead of letting spin_lock pass the
"&sma->sem_base[i].lock" as name.


Thanks,
Sasha
--
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/