lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/8] lockdep: fix recursive read lock validation
    On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Gautham R Shenoy <ego@in.ibm.com> wrote:
    > Subject: lockdep: fix recursive read lock validation
    > This means that the following sequence is now invalid, whereas previously
    > it was considered valid:
    >
    > rlock(a); rlock(b); runlock(b); runlock(a)
    > rlock(b); rlock(a);

    Why are you marking this sequence as invalid ? Although it can be
    debated whether it is good programming practice to be inconsistent
    about the order of read-locking, the above sequence can't be involved
    in a deadlock.

    Bart.


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-04-29 15:19    [W:3.771 / U:0.240 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site