[lkml]   [2014]   [Jan]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: check && lockdep_no_validate (Was: lockdep: Introduce wait-type checks)
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 06:43:48PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> But with or without this change the following code
> static DEFINE_MUTEX(m1);
> static DEFINE_MUTEX(mx);
> lockdep_set_novalidate_class(&mx);
> // m1 -> mx
> mutex_lock(&m1);
> mutex_lock(&mx);
> mutex_unlock(&mx);
> mutex_unlock(&m1);
> // mx -> m1 ; should trigger the warning ???
> mutex_lock(&mx);
> mutex_lock(&m1);
> mutex_unlock(&m1);
> mutex_unlock(&mx);
> doesn't trigger the warning too. This is correct because
> lockdep_set_novalidate_class() means, well, no-validate.
> The question is: do we really want to avoid all validations?

Good question.

> Why lockdep_set_novalidate_class() was added? Unlees I missed
> something the problem is that (say) __driver_attach() can take
> the "same" lock twice, drivers/base/ lacks annotations.

Indeed, the driver model locking always slips my mind but yes its
creative. Alan Stern seems to have a good grasp on it though.

> Perhaps we should change the meaning of lockdep_set_novalidate_class?
> (perhaps with rename). What do you think about the patch below?
> With this patch __lockdep_no_validate__ means "automatically nested",

Yes, I suppose that might work, it would allow some validation.

> although I have to remind I can hardly understand the code I am
> trying to change ;)

You don't seem to be doing too badly ;-)

 \ /
  Last update: 2014-01-16 20:01    [W:0.082 / U:5.188 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site