From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3][-mm] add class_reclassify macro Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 05:36:29 -0600 Message-ID: <20080520113629.GK2638@parisc-linux.org> References: <20080520095553.GA3201@darkstar.te-china.tietoenator.com> <20080520030232.fc91b64e.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from palinux.external.hp.com ([192.25.206.14]:57045 "EHLO mail.parisc-linux.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752520AbYETLga (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 May 2008 07:36:30 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080520030232.fc91b64e.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Andrew Morton Cc: Dave Young , greg@kroah.com, kay.sievers@vrfy.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 03:02:32AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 20 May 2008 17:55:54 +0800 Dave Young wrote: > > > Converting class semaphore to mutex cause lockdep warnings due to > > class_interface_register/unregister will possible call device_add/del > > Shouldn't we just fix that? That's what I suggested (in a thread you were cc'd on, but probably aren't reading). I don't like this reclassify thing either. -- Intel are signing my paycheques ... these opinions are still mine "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step."