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 Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 07:02:10AM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
> 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?

Indeed, it does not do that. I suppose you can add
lockdep_assert_held_once() or somesuch if you think the once thing is
important.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-09-10 15:41    [W:0.207 / U:0.244 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site