Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 21 Mar 2007 22:28:02 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] lockdep: lockdep_depth vs. debug_locks Re: [2.6.20] BUG: workqueue leaked lock |
| |
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 07:11:19 +0100 Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl> wrote:
> > Here is some joke: > > [PATCH] lockdep: lockdep_depth vs. debug_locks > > lockdep really shouldn't be used when debug_locks == 0! >
This isn't a very good changelog.
> > Reported-by: Folkert van Heusden <folkert@vanheusden.com> > Inspired-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru> > Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl> > > --- > > diff -Nurp 2.6.21-rc4-git4-/include/linux/lockdep.h 2.6.21-rc4-git4/include/linux/lockdep.h > --- 2.6.21-rc4-git4-/include/linux/lockdep.h 2007-03-20 20:24:17.000000000 +0100 > +++ 2.6.21-rc4-git4/include/linux/lockdep.h 2007-03-21 22:32:41.000000000 +0100 > @@ -245,7 +245,7 @@ extern void lock_release(struct lockdep_ > > # define INIT_LOCKDEP .lockdep_recursion = 0, > > -#define lockdep_depth(tsk) ((tsk)->lockdep_depth) > +#define lockdep_depth(tsk) (debug_locks ? (tsk)->lockdep_depth : 0) > > #else /* !LOCKDEP */ >
What problem does this solve, and how does it solve it?
I assume that some codepath is incrementing ->lockdep_depth even when debug_locks==0. Isn't that wrong of it? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |