From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C44BC433EF for ; Tue, 10 May 2022 14:13:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id E2B5A6B0071; Tue, 10 May 2022 10:13:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id DDB6C6B0073; Tue, 10 May 2022 10:13:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id CF0F66B0074; Tue, 10 May 2022 10:13:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0012.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.12]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFEC86B0071 for ; Tue, 10 May 2022 10:13:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin26.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay08.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8979921ACF for ; Tue, 10 May 2022 14:13:03 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79450025046.26.80506CF Received: from dfw.source.kernel.org (dfw.source.kernel.org [139.178.84.217]) by imf09.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59E9014008A for ; Tue, 10 May 2022 14:12:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dfw.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A12E60C6B; Tue, 10 May 2022 14:13:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 16E0DC385C6; Tue, 10 May 2022 14:12:55 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 10 May 2022 10:12:54 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Byungchul Park Cc: Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, adilger.kernel@dilger.ca, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, will@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, joel@joelfernandes.org, sashal@kernel.org, daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch, chris@chris-wilson.co.uk, duyuyang@gmail.com, johannes.berg@intel.com, tj@kernel.org, tytso@mit.edu, willy@infradead.org, david@fromorbit.com, amir73il@gmail.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, kernel-team@lge.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mhocko@kernel.org, minchan@kernel.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, vdavydov.dev@gmail.com, sj@kernel.org, jglisse@redhat.com, dennis@kernel.org, cl@linux.com, penberg@kernel.org, rientjes@google.com, vbabka@suse.cz, ngupta@vflare.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, paolo.valente@linaro.org, josef@toxicpanda.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, jack@suse.cz, jack@suse.com, jlayton@kernel.org, dan.j.williams@intel.com, hch@infradead.org, djwong@kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, airlied@linux.ie, rodrigosiqueiramelo@gmail.com, melissa.srw@gmail.com, hamohammed.sa@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v6 00/21] DEPT(Dependency Tracker) Message-ID: <20220510101254.33554885@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <20220509233838.GC6047@X58A-UD3R> References: <1651795895-8641-1-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com> <20220509001637.GA6047@X58A-UD3R> <20220509164712.746e236b@gandalf.local.home> <20220509233838.GC6047@X58A-UD3R> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.8 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Server: rspam02 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 59E9014008A X-Stat-Signature: ketf17hb7z44ti1rucxos9woamnwbd78 X-Rspam-User: Authentication-Results: imf09.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; spf=pass (imf09.hostedemail.com: domain of "SRS0=uVqW=VS=goodmis.org=rostedt@kernel.org" designates 139.178.84.217 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="SRS0=uVqW=VS=goodmis.org=rostedt@kernel.org"; dmarc=none X-HE-Tag: 1652191975-2809 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue, 10 May 2022 08:38:38 +0900 Byungchul Park wrote: > Yes, I was talking about A and L'. > > > detect that regardless of L. A nested lock associates the the nesting with > > When I checked Lockdep code, L' with depth n + 1 and L' with depth n > have different classes in Lockdep. If that's the case, then that's a bug in lockdep. > > That's why I said Lockdep cannot detect it. By any chance, has it > changed so as to consider this case? Or am I missing something? No, it's not that lockdep cannot detect it, it should detect it. If it is not detecting it, then we need to fix that. -- Steve