From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] acpi: add real mutex function calls Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 00:16:15 +0200 Message-ID: <48A6002F.6070706@linux.intel.com> References: <1218831242-27618-1-git-send-email-dwalker@mvista.com> <1218831242-27618-2-git-send-email-dwalker@mvista.com> <1218831242-27618-3-git-send-email-dwalker@mvista.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mga10.intel.com ([192.55.52.92]:21555 "EHLO fmsmga102.fm.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751605AbYHOWQL (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Aug 2008 18:16:11 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1218831242-27618-3-git-send-email-dwalker@mvista.com> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Daniel Walker Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Len Brown , Robert Moore Daniel Walker wrote: > Instead of re-using semaphores for the mutex operation, I've > added usage of the kernel mutex for the acpi os mutex > implementation. This still implies that we'll get lockdep warnings if the AML does something dodgy with mutexes, right? I don't like that. We cannot generally fix the AML, the only way would be to time out on a deadlock and let it handle that. Also it's not that we don't get enough ACPI reports already. Is there a way to just turn lockdep always off for these mutexes? -Andi