[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 11:01:49 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Arne Jansen <lists@...-jansens.de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
efault@....de, npiggin@...nel.dk, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
frank.rowand@...sony.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [debug patch] printk: Add a printk killswitch to robustify NMI
watchdog messages
On Sun, 2011-06-05 at 22:15 +0200, Arne Jansen wrote:
>
> Can lockdep just get confused by the lockdep_off/on calls in printk
> while scheduling is allowed? There aren't many users of lockdep_off().
Yes!, in that case lock_is_held() returns false, triggering the warning.
I guess there's an argument to be made in favour of the below..
---
kernel/lockdep.c | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/lockdep.c b/kernel/lockdep.c
index 53a6895..e4129cf 100644
--- a/kernel/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/lockdep.c
@@ -3242,7 +3242,7 @@ int lock_is_held(struct lockdep_map *lock)
int ret = 0;
if (unlikely(current->lockdep_recursion))
- return ret;
+ return 1; /* avoid false negative lockdep_assert_held */
raw_local_irq_save(flags);
check_flags(flags);
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists