Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] regmap: add configurable lock class key for lockdep

[Arjan van de Ven]

On 6/29/2015 8:32 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 07:35:20AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> > lockdep assumes that there is a known lock hierarchy, at least known
> > to the developer.
>
> > seems like for regmap there isn't
>
> It's not that there's no heirachy of locks, it's that lockdep is unable
> to understand what's going on since it's making simplifying assumptions
> that just aren't true.  If I remember the problem correctly it's
> grouping all locks allocated in the same place into one class which
> doesn't work at all for scenarios where you've got a generic interface
> providing services to many devices which may be stacked on top of each
> other.

but the stacking *IS* a lock hierarchy.

it just seems that the hierarchy is implied rather than explicit.


> > (I would be interested to know how you avoid ABBA deadlocks btw,
> > can you have 2 devices, one with a hierarchy one way, and another
> > with the hierarchy the other way?)
>
> I'm not sure I fully understand what you mean here, sorry - do you mean
> in terms of classes or individual devices?  The relationships between
> devices are all device and system defined, individual regmaps should be
> treated as separate classes.  From this perspective it's basically
> eqivalent to asking how the mutex code avoids misuse of mutexes.

well what I meant is inividual devices/ranges

like device A is on devmap A but then ends up using devmap B underneath
(e.g. the lock nesting case)

what prevents there from being a device B that is on devmap B but that
uses devmap A underneath


>

--
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/