lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Sep]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 13/26] locking: Add non-fatal spin lock assert
On 09/04/2014 01:14 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 10:50:01AM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
>>> So a lockdep-only assert is unlikely to draw attention to existing bugs,
>>> especially in established drivers.
>>
>> By the same logic lockdep will not find locking errors in established
>> drivers.
>
> Indeed, this patch is ill-advised in several ways:
>
> - it extends an API variant that we want to phase
>
> - emits a warning even if say lockdep has already emitted a
> warning and locking state is not guaranteed to be consistent.
>
> - makes the kernel more expensive once fully debugged, in that
> non-fatal checks are unconditional.

Ok.

One thing: I'm not seeing how lockdep_assert_held() switches off once
the warning has been emitted? Is the caller expected to construct their
own _ONCE tags?

Regards,
Peter Hurley


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-09-10 13:21    [W:0.172 / U:0.304 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site