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

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Mon, 2013-03-25 at 14:42 -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> depth nesting here...
> Adding Peter & Ingo for advice about how to proceed

> > +++ b/ipc/sem.c
> > @@ -357,7 +357,7 @@ static inline int sem_lock(struct sem_array
> *sma, struct sembuf *sops,
> >                 spin_lock(&sma->sem_perm.lock);
> >                 for (i = 0; i < sma->sem_nsems; i++) {
> >                         struct sem *sem = sma->sem_base + i;
> > -                       spin_lock(&sem->lock);
> > +                       spin_lock_nested(&sem->lock,
> SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
> >                 }
> >                 locknum = -1;
> >         }

Right, so as walken said, this isn't going to work right.

I need a little more information as I've not really paid much attention
to this stuff. Firstly, is there a limit to sem_nsems or is this a
random user specified number? Secondly do we care about lock order at
all, or is array order the only order that counts?



--
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/