From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756730AbaHYXe5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Aug 2014 19:34:57 -0400 Received: from toccata.ens-lyon.org ([140.77.166.68]:44516 "EHLO toccata.ens-lyon.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755221AbaHYXez (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Aug 2014 19:34:55 -0400 Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 01:34:43 +0200 From: Samuel Thibault To: Hugh Dickins Cc: Sabrina Dubroca , Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, Vincent Donnefort , Bryan Wu , linux-leds@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 3.17-rc1: leds blink workqueue causes sleeping BUGs Message-ID: <20140825233443.GB13130@type.youpi.perso.aquilenet.fr> Mail-Followup-To: Samuel Thibault , Hugh Dickins , Sabrina Dubroca , Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, Vincent Donnefort , Bryan Wu , linux-leds@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org References: <10857.1408467967@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <20140825211340.GA22168@kria> <20140825212324.GC3070@type.youpi.perso.aquilenet.fr> <20140825213752.GD3070@type.youpi.perso.aquilenet.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21+34 (58baf7c9f32f) (2010-12-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hugh Dickins, le Mon 25 Aug 2014 15:00:44 -0700, a écrit : > On Mon, 25 Aug 2014, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > Samuel Thibault, le Mon 25 Aug 2014 23:23:24 +0200, a écrit : > > > We could indeed have a loop if the user was making the VT::* leds use > > > the vt-* trigger, > > > > Actually, while there can be a loop, it wouldn't be possible to inject > > events in it: a VT::* led only makes the corresponding vt-* trigger if > > it got an event from its trigger, etc. So it's really a false positive, > > the lock detector just can not know that it can not happen. > > I'm not suffering from this lockdep warning myself; but, false positive > or not, it does need to be fixed (or annotated). Because once lockdep > reports one issue, it turns itself off. So any developer who hits this > warning is then unable test their own changes with lockdep afterwards. Ew. I'll have a look. Samuel