From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Christian_K=F6nig?= <deathsimple@vodafone.de>
Subject: Re: VM lockdep warning
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 16:16:23 +0200
Message-ID: <4F92C137.6050403@vodafone.de>
References: <CAPM=9tyDqqtrQAUByMLNhYY3OLQWg1fJ2acMOAVk1hhsncLayw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F92A9AA.4030607@vodafone.de>
	<CAH3drwYXR1JFzie+oc5YQLRPJF+Yhe8TYQ1RLy_YXgLgdj34qA@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <dri-devel-bounces+sf-dri-devel=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from outgoing.email.vodafone.de (outgoing.email.vodafone.de
	[139.7.28.128])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F9A49E75C
	for <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Sat, 21 Apr 2012 07:16:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAH3drwYXR1JFzie+oc5YQLRPJF+Yhe8TYQ1RLy_YXgLgdj34qA@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/options/dri-devel>,
	<mailto:dri-devel-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dri-devel-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel>,
	<mailto:dri-devel-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: dri-devel-bounces+sf-dri-devel=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
Errors-To: dri-devel-bounces+sf-dri-devel=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
To: Jerome Glisse <j.glisse@gmail.com>
Cc: dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Id: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org

On 21.04.2012 16:08, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> 2012/4/21 Christian K=F6nig<deathsimple@vodafone.de>:
>> Interesting, I'm pretty sure that I haven't touched the locking order of=
 the
>> cs_mutex vs. vm_mutex.
>>
>> Maybe it is just some kind of side effect, going to locking into it anyw=
ay.
>>
>> Christian.
>>
> It's the using, init path take lock in different order than cs path
Well, could you explain to me why the vm code takes cs mutex in the =

first place?

It clearly has it's own mutex and it doesn't looks like that it deals =

with any cs related data anyway.

Christian.