Bluetooth: silence lockdep warning
authorOctavian Purdila <tavi.purdila@gmail.com>
Sat, 21 Jan 2012 22:28:34 +0000 (00:28 +0200)
committerJohan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@intel.com>
Wed, 15 Feb 2012 11:09:26 +0000 (13:09 +0200)
Since bluetooth uses multiple protocols types, to avoid lockdep
warnings, we need to use different lockdep classes (one for each
protocol type).

This is already done in bt_sock_create but it misses a couple of cases
when new connections are created. This patch corrects that to fix the
following warning:

<4>[ 1864.732366] =======================================================
<4>[ 1864.733030] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
<4>[ 1864.733544] 3.0.16-mid3-00007-gc9a0f62 #3
<4>[ 1864.733883] -------------------------------------------------------
<4>[ 1864.734408] t.android.btclc/4204 is trying to acquire lock:
<4>[ 1864.734869]  (rfcomm_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<c14970ea>] rfcomm_dlc_close+0x15/0x30
<4>[ 1864.735541]
<4>[ 1864.735549] but task is already holding lock:
<4>[ 1864.736045]  (sk_lock-AF_BLUETOOTH){+.+.+.}, at: [<c1498bf7>] lock_sock+0xa/0xc
<4>[ 1864.736732]
<4>[ 1864.736740] which lock already depends on the new lock.
<4>[ 1864.736750]
<4>[ 1864.737428]
<4>[ 1864.737437] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
<4>[ 1864.738016]
<4>[ 1864.738023] -> #1 (sk_lock-AF_BLUETOOTH){+.+.+.}:
<4>[ 1864.738549]        [<c1062273>] lock_acquire+0x104/0x140
<4>[ 1864.738977]        [<c13d35c1>] lock_sock_nested+0x58/0x68
<4>[ 1864.739411]        [<c1493c33>] l2cap_sock_sendmsg+0x3e/0x76
<4>[ 1864.739858]        [<c13d06c3>] __sock_sendmsg+0x50/0x59
<4>[ 1864.740279]        [<c13d0ea2>] sock_sendmsg+0x94/0xa8
<4>[ 1864.740687]        [<c13d0ede>] kernel_sendmsg+0x28/0x37
<4>[ 1864.741106]        [<c14969ca>] rfcomm_send_frame+0x30/0x38
<4>[ 1864.741542]        [<c1496a2a>] rfcomm_send_ua+0x58/0x5a
<4>[ 1864.741959]        [<c1498447>] rfcomm_run+0x441/0xb52
<4>[ 1864.742365]        [<c104f095>] kthread+0x63/0x68
<4>[ 1864.742742]        [<c14d5182>] kernel_thread_helper+0x6/0xd
<4>[ 1864.743187]
<4>[ 1864.743193] -> #0 (rfcomm_mutex){+.+.+.}:
<4>[ 1864.743667]        [<c1061ada>] __lock_acquire+0x988/0xc00
<4>[ 1864.744100]        [<c1062273>] lock_acquire+0x104/0x140
<4>[ 1864.744519]        [<c14d2c70>] __mutex_lock_common+0x3b/0x33f
<4>[ 1864.744975]        [<c14d303e>] mutex_lock_nested+0x2d/0x36
<4>[ 1864.745412]        [<c14970ea>] rfcomm_dlc_close+0x15/0x30
<4>[ 1864.745842]        [<c14990d9>] __rfcomm_sock_close+0x5f/0x6b
<4>[ 1864.746288]        [<c1499114>] rfcomm_sock_shutdown+0x2f/0x62
<4>[ 1864.746737]        [<c13d275d>] sys_socketcall+0x1db/0x422
<4>[ 1864.747165]        [<c14d42f0>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb

Signed-off-by: Octavian Purdila <octavian.purdila@intel.com>
Acked-by: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>
Signed-off-by: Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@intel.com>

No differences found