From: Ingo M. <mi...@el...> - 2009-06-01 20:46:21
|
* Linus Torvalds <tor...@li...> wrote: > On Mon, 1 Jun 2009, Krzysztof Helt wrote: > > > > I will fix it. > > Thanks. > > > If the revert to BKL is rejected this patch may wait till > > 2.6.31. > > Ahh, so this one helps clean up locking, but doesn't fix any > actual regressions? I was going to ask you about that. > > Btw - one thing you could try on the whole lockdep front - and I > realize that this is a _total_ hack - is to try the patch below. One thing that might be less obscure is to add: lockdep_off(); ... lockdep_on(); to around those user-copies. Those cause lockdep to totally ignore those dependencies. It's an ugly hack - but at least a readable hack IMO. With big red warning signs, a promise to fix this ASAP, etc. It's still much better than a big ugly revert back to the BKL (of course - and regardless of how late we are in the cycle) - and probably a bit better than the atomic-copy hack. Or am i missing something? Ingo |