linux-kernel - Re: [patch] lock debugging: fix DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON() & debug_locks

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20061219085103.GK21070@parisc-linux.org>
Date:	Tue, 19 Dec 2006 01:51:03 -0700
From:	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
To:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] lock debugging: fix DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON() & debug_locks_silent

On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 09:43:59AM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> I wonder why doing debug_locks_off depends here on
> debug_lock_silent state which is only "esthetical"
> flag. And debug_locks_off() takes into consideration
> debug_lock_silent after all. So IMHO:

It's not 'aesthetic' at all.  It's used to say "We are about to cause a
locking failure deliberately as part of the test suite".  It would be
wrong to disable lock debugging as a result of running the test suite.
-
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/