> 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 tree-usage patterns. 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.
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds