Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 29 May 2013 13:14:51 +0200 | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 3/9] liblockdep: Add public headers for pthread_mutex_t implementation |
| |
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 03:33:51PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: > On 05/22/2013 05:22 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > They will however then also want all the 'normal' lockdep annotations to > > deal with that like: > > > > liblockdep_pthread_mutex_lock_nested() > > liblockdep_pthread_mutex_lock_nest_lock() > > > > *phew* and here I always though pthread_mutex_* was a long prefix... > > > > Also, the above doesn't have the full lockstat contention hooks -- not > > sure that's on purpose or not. > > I was quietly hoping on leaving this out in the initial version of liblockdep > and start adding this and the rest of the toys that come with lockdep once we > figure out whether this code will go into the kernel tree or not. > > Should I be adding them now?
I think you'll need them very quicky one you actually start using this stuff, but sure, add them when you need them.
> >> + > >> +static inline int liblockdep_pthread_mutex_unlock(liblockdep_pthread_mutex_t *lock) > >> +{ > >> + lock_release(&lock->dep_map, 0, (unsigned long)_RET_IP_); > >> + return pthread_mutex_unlock(&lock->mutex); > >> +} > >> + > >> +static inline int liblockdep_pthread_mutex_trylock(liblockdep_pthread_mutex_t *lock) > >> +{ > >> + lock_acquire(&lock->dep_map, 0, 1, 0, 2, NULL, (unsigned long)_RET_IP_); > >> + return pthread_mutex_trylock(&lock->mutex) == 0 ? 1 : 0; > >> +} > >> + > >> +static inline int liblockdep_pthread_mutex_destroy(liblockdep_pthread_mutex_t *lock) > >> +{ > >> + return pthread_mutex_destroy(&lock->mutex); > >> +} > >> + > >> +#ifdef __USE_LIBLOCKDEP > >> + > >> +#define pthread_mutex_t liblockdep_pthread_mutex_t > >> +#define pthread_mutex_init liblockdep_pthread_mutex_init > >> +#define pthread_mutex_lock liblockdep_pthread_mutex_lock > >> +#define pthread_mutex_unlock liblockdep_pthread_mutex_unlock > >> +#define pthread_mutex_trylock liblockdep_pthread_mutex_trylock > >> +#define pthread_mutex_destroy liblockdep_pthread_mutex_destroy > > > > Given the liblockdep_* things use 'proper' classes do you want this > > mapping? If you do, should we use the same alias nonsense glibc uses or > > are CPP macros good enough for us? > > > > I think that this will be good enough for our purpose, why wouldn't these > simple macros be enough?
Suppose you have a funny someone who added a function called: pthread_mutex_lock_obj() or somesuch, imagine what the CPP thing will make of that :-)
Then again, people doing that might deserve what they get ;-)
| |