From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965134AbWGJPtO (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Jul 2006 11:49:14 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965115AbWGJPtN (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Jul 2006 11:49:13 -0400 Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.187]:59628 "EHLO nf-out-0910.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965134AbWGJPtM (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Jul 2006 11:49:12 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=kuetSnZbwBrcEXTA4RHWXyfaQY4PvximetE4BYykvmEbYKFXjCH++LswmPjvXteYsgXjlExzO02dbciOmMABjJmceYXPfxce8BXvwekKHm64wT7IPZ3Z3XLjTtKhUeAQRvQSmLqjZPVQoOZRfqgcArIxzj6z2evXkPSpftVLQx8= Message-ID: Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 11:49:10 -0400 From: "Dmitry Torokhov" To: "Arjan van de Ven" Subject: Re: lockdep input layer warnings. Cc: "Dave Jones" , mingo@redhat.com, "Linux Kernel" In-Reply-To: <1152544371.4874.66.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20060706173411.GA2538@redhat.com> <1152212575.3084.88.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <1152544371.4874.66.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 7/10/06, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 16:29 -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > > Well, you are right, the patch is in -rc1 and I see mutex_lock_nested > > in the backtrace but for some reason it is still not happy. Again, > > this is with pass-through Synaptics port and we first taking mutex of > > the child device and then (going through pass-through port) trying to > > take mutex of the parent. > > Ok it seems more drastic measures are needed; and a split of the > cmd_mutex class on a per driver basis. The easiest way to do that is to > inline the lock initialization (patch below) but to be honest I think > the patch is a bit ugly; I considered inlining the entire function > instead, any opinions on that? > It is ugly. Maybe we could have something like mutex_init_nolockdep() to annotate that lockdep is confused and make it ignore such locks? Of course there is a chance that lockdep is correct but I do not think so. -- Dmitry