* Johannes Berg [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

@@ -257,7 +260,9 @@ static void run_workqueue(struct cpu_wor

 		BUG_ON(get_wq_data(work) != cwq);
 		work_clear_pending(work);
+		lock_acquire(&cwq->wq->lockdep_map, 0, 0, 0, 2, _THIS_IP_);
 		f(work);
+		lock_release(&cwq->wq->lockdep_map, 0, _THIS_IP_);

                                                   ^^^
Isn't it better to call lock_release() with nested == 1 ?

Not sure, Ingo?

well, in this case the lock/unlock should nest perfectly (i.e. it should 
always be balanced perfectly), so indeed calling with nested==1 leads to 
stricter checking.

non-nested unlocks occur when people do stuff like:

	spin_lock(&lock1);
	spin_lock(&lock2);
	spin_unlock(&lock1);
	spin_unlock(&lock2);

the first unlock is not 'nested perfectly'. Now for the workqueue 
dep_map this shouldnt be a legal combination, right?

	Ingo