From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-yw1-f67.google.com ([209.85.161.67]:36138 "EHLO mail-yw1-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727650AbeHUTVY (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Aug 2018 15:21:24 -0400 Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2018 09:00:39 -0700 From: Tejun Heo To: Johannes Berg Cc: Lai Jiangshan , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] workqueue lockdep limitations/bugs Message-ID: <20180821160039.GO3978217@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com> (sfid-20180821_180126_052774_5D2E0BF7) References: <20180821120317.4115-1-johannes@sipsolutions.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20180821120317.4115-1-johannes@sipsolutions.net> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hello, Johannes. On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 02:03:15PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > 3) > The third problem is more complicated, but it means that we likely miss a > lot of potential locking problems with ordered workqueues, and I think we > should really try to fix this somehow. > > Let's say we again have an ordered workqueue, and the following: > > work1_function > { > mutex_lock(&mutex); > } Regular mutexes complain when the locker isn't the unlocker already. Do we really care about this case? Thanks. -- tejun