[v3,3/3] Improve container_notify_cb() to support container hot-remove.

On Thursday, November 01, 2012 03:15:31 PM Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
> >> oh, no, that commit should not be reverted. instead we should add some
> >> comment for it...
> >>
> >> that mean : three path, will have three separated static lock dep key
> >> from every INIT_WORK.
> >
> > I see.
> >
> > OK, I'll drop the patch removing it.
> >
> > What about the following comment:
> >
> > "To prevent lockdep from complaining unnecessarily, make sure that there
> >  is a different static lockdep key created for each workqueue by using
> >  INIT_WORK for each of them separately."
> >
> created ?
> 
> how about "defined" ?
> 
> or just remove  "created"

Yes, that's better.

I suppose that the appended patch may be better still, though.

Thanks,
Rafael


---
From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Subject: ACPI: Make seemingly useless check in osl.c more understandable

There is a seemingly useless check in drivers/acpi/osl.c added by
commit bc73675 (ACPI: fixes a false alarm from lockdep), which really
is necessary to avoid false positive lockdep complaints.  Document
this and rearrange the code related to it so that it makes fewer
checks.

Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
---
 drivers/acpi/osl.c |   21 ++++++++++++++-------
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> Subject: ACPI: Make seemingly useless check in osl.c more understandable
>
> There is a seemingly useless check in drivers/acpi/osl.c added by
> commit bc73675 (ACPI: fixes a false alarm from lockdep), which really
> is necessary to avoid false positive lockdep complaints.  Document
> this and rearrange the code related to it so that it makes fewer
> checks.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/acpi/osl.c |   21 ++++++++++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux/drivers/acpi/osl.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux.orig/drivers/acpi/osl.c
> +++ linux/drivers/acpi/osl.c
> @@ -944,17 +944,24 @@ static acpi_status __acpi_os_execute(acp
>          * because the hotplug code may call driver .remove() functions,
>          * which invoke flush_scheduled_work/acpi_os_wait_events_complete
>          * to flush these workqueues.
> +        *
> +        * To prevent lockdep from complaining unnecessarily, make sure that
> +        * there is a different static lockdep key for each workqueue by using
> +        * INIT_WORK() for each of them separately.
>          */
> -       queue = hp ? kacpi_hotplug_wq :
> -               (type == OSL_NOTIFY_HANDLER ? kacpi_notify_wq : kacpid_wq);
> -       dpc->wait = hp ? 1 : 0;
> -
> -       if (queue == kacpi_hotplug_wq)
> +       if (hp) {
> +               queue = kacpi_hotplug_wq;
> +               dpc->wait = 1;
>                 INIT_WORK(&dpc->work, acpi_os_execute_deferred);
> -       else if (queue == kacpi_notify_wq)
> +       } else if (type == OSL_NOTIFY_HANDLER) {
> +               queue = kacpi_notify_wq;
> +               dpc->wait = 0;

yes, much clear.

at the same can you changne
dpc allocation from kmalloc with kzalloc instead.

then we save two lines for dpc->wait = 0

After that

Acked-by: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>

>                 INIT_WORK(&dpc->work, acpi_os_execute_deferred);
> -       else
> +       } else {
> +               queue = kacpid_wq;
> +               dpc->wait = 0;
>                 INIT_WORK(&dpc->work, acpi_os_execute_deferred);
> +       }
>
>         /*
>          * On some machines, a software-initiated SMI causes corruption unless
>
> --
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html