[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 22:07:52 -0800
From: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
dhowells@...hat.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com, darren@...art.com,
fweisbec@...il.com, patches@...aro.org,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paul.mckenney@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 37/41] lockdep: Add CPU-idle/offline
warning to lockdep-RCU splat
On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 11:41:55AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> --- a/kernel/lockdep.c
> +++ b/kernel/lockdep.c
> @@ -4176,7 +4176,13 @@ void lockdep_rcu_suspicious(const char *file, const int line, const char *s)
> printk("-------------------------------\n");
> printk("%s:%d %s!\n", file, line, s);
> printk("\nother info that might help us debug this:\n\n");
> - printk("\nrcu_scheduler_active = %d, debug_locks = %d\n", rcu_scheduler_active, debug_locks);
> + printk("\n%srcu_scheduler_active = %d, debug_locks = %d\n",
> + !rcu_lockdep_current_cpu_online()
> + ? "RCU used illegally from offline CPU!\n"
> + : rcu_is_cpu_idle()
> + ? "RCU used illegally from idle CPU!\n"
> + : "",
Not the usual way I've seen chained ?: indented in kernel code:
cond1 ? value1 :
cond2 ? value2 :
value3
That avoids repeated indentation over to the right, much like "else if".
- Josh Triplett
--
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