Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] lockdep: add lockdep_assert_not_held() | From | Shuah Khan <> | Date | Mon, 22 Feb 2021 13:51:57 -0700 |
| |
On 2/15/21 9:10 AM, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Mon, 2021-02-15 at 17:04 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 02:12:30PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: >>> On Mon, 2021-02-15 at 11:44 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >>>> I think something like so will work, but please double check. >>> >>> Yeah, that looks better. >>> >>>> +++ b/include/linux/lockdep.h >>>> @@ -294,11 +294,15 @@ extern void lock_unpin_lock(struct lockdep_map *lock, struct pin_cookie); >>>> >>>> #define lockdep_depth(tsk) (debug_locks ? (tsk)->lockdep_depth : 0) >>>> >>>> -#define lockdep_assert_held(l) do { \ >>>> - WARN_ON(debug_locks && !lockdep_is_held(l)); \ >>>> +#define lockdep_assert_held(l) do { \ >>>> + WARN_ON(debug_locks && lockdep_is_held(l) == 0)); \ >>>> } while (0) >>> >>> That doesn't really need to change? It's the same. >> >> Correct, but I found it more symmetric vs the not implementation below. > > Fair enough. One might argue that you should have an > > enum lockdep_lock_state { > LOCK_STATE_NOT_HELD, /* 0 now */ > LOCK_STATE_HELD, /* 1 now */ > LOCK_STATE_UNKNOWN, /* -1 with your patch but might as well be 2 */ > }; > > :) >
Thank you both. Picking this back up. Will send v2 incorporating your comments and suggestions.
thanks, -- Shuah
| |