From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Toshi Kani Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] Improve container_notify_cb() to support container hot-remove. Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 15:51:42 -0600 Message-ID: <1351806702.19172.104.camel@misato.fc.hp.com> References: <1351668471-31436-1-git-send-email-tangchen@cn.fujitsu.com> <1748725.QBg5LLmPOx@vostro.rjw.lan> <11976302.Ya3MGGIAsU@vostro.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <11976302.Ya3MGGIAsU@vostro.rjw.lan> Sender: linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Yinghai Lu , ZhangRui , Andrew Morton , Len Brown , Tang Chen , bhelgaas@google.com, jiang.liu@huawei.com, izumi.taku@jp.fujitsu.com, isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org > > >> Hi Yinghai, > > >> > > >> Per the following thread, the code seems to be written in this way to > > >> allocate a separate lock_class_key for each work queue. It should have > > >> had some comment to explain this, though. > > >> > > >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2009/12/13/304 > > > > > > The code has evolved since then, however, so that it doesn't make sense > > > any more. > > > > > > > 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." Looks good to me. Thanks, -Toshi > > Thanks, > Rafael > >