lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jan]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: check && lockdep_no_validate (Was: lockdep: Introduce wait-type checks)
    On 01/12, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
    >
    > On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 06:54:48PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
    > >
    > > --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
    > > +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
    > > @@ -1939,7 +1939,8 @@ check_prevs_add(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *next)
    > > * Only non-recursive-read entries get new dependencies
    > > * added:
    > > */
    > > - if (hlock->read != 2) {
    > > + if (hlock->read != 2 &&
    > > + hlock->instance->key != &__lockdep_no_validate__) {
    > > if (!check_prev_add(curr, hlock, next,
    > > distance, trylock_loop))
    > > return 0;
    > >
    >
    > Hmm, you are quite right indeed;

    Thanks!

    > although I would write it like:
    >
    > if (hlock->read != 2 && hlock->check == 2)
    >
    > because the __lockdep_no_validate__ thing forces the ->check value to 1.

    Agreed, hlock->check == 2 looks better. But this connects to another
    patch I sent which removes hlock->check...

    OK, I'll wait for review on that patch, then resend this one with
    ->check or __lockdep_no_validate__ depending on the result.

    Oleg.



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2014-01-13 19:41    [W:2.588 / U:0.060 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site