From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763779AbZEHTGY (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 May 2009 15:06:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754701AbZEHTGI (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 May 2009 15:06:08 -0400 Received: from one.firstfloor.org ([213.235.205.2]:47593 "EHLO one.firstfloor.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753599AbZEHTGH (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 May 2009 15:06:07 -0400 Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 21:11:01 +0200 From: Andi Kleen To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Shaohua Li , lkml , Andi Kleen , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86 MCE: shut up lockdep warning Message-ID: <20090508191101.GB23223@one.firstfloor.org> References: <1241754429.4444.12.camel@sli10-desk.sh.intel.com> <1241771697.11251.194.camel@twins> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1241771697.11251.194.camel@twins> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > So was this a genuine bug in your code? The patch suggests it was. No I think it was false. See my earlier email. The higher level cpu_add_remove_lock makes sure that there is never an interrupt when the code is running process context. So Ingo's patch shuts off lockdep, but it's overkill and not really needed. It would be better if there was some way to express the dependency on cpu_add_remove_lock, but I'm not sure that can be expressed in lockdep. -Andi -- ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.