> That's not what you said before! It sounded like you were describing a
> situation where task A acquires locks walking down the tree and
> simultaneously task B acquires locks walking up the
> tree. That can't work.
Okay, what I wrote before wasn't sufficiently unambiguous and you misinterpreted it.
> So your assertion is demonstratedly untrue, but you still can't give
> semaphores an owner.
Lockdep works in the special-case example of VFS. It still can't be made to handle general
It's true that many semaphores can't be given an owner. However there are some which can, but
which nevertheless can't be converted to a mutex.