Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 26 Jan 2023 14:10:10 -0500 | From | Alan Stern <> | Subject | Re: [Patch 2/2] tools/memory-model: Provide exact SRCU semantics |
| |
On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 09:35:07AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 12:30:14PM +0100, Jonas Oberhauser wrote: > > I don't think they're necessarily implemented in a compatible way, so > > > > r = srcu_lock(s); > > srcu_up(s,r); > > > > might not actually work, but would currently be ok'ed by LKMM. > > In kernels built with CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=y (AKA built with lockdep > enabled), lockdep would complain about having an srcu_read_lock() with > no matching srcu_read_unlock(). Kernels built without lockdep (that is, > kernels actually used in production) would be happy with this. > > So as Jonas suspects, this should be classified as not actually working.
Lockdep complaints don't actually stop things from working (unless you want them to). They're just warnings, right?
Alan
| |