When pinning/unpinning a pagetable with split pte locks, we can end up
holding multiple pte locks at once (we need to hold the locks while
there's a pending batched hypercall affecting the pte page).  Because
all the pte locks are in the same lock class, lockdep thinks that
we're potentially taking a lock recursively.

This warning is spurious because we always take the pte locks while
holding mm->page_table_lock.  lockdep now has spin_lock_nest_lock to
express this kind of dominant lock use, so use it here so that lockdep
knows what's going on.
Signed-off-by: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@citrix.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>