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]

Date:	Tue, 19 Dec 2006 10:05:06 +0100
From:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>
To:	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
Cc:	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 01:51:03AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> 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.

So it's probably something with my English...
>From lib/debug_locks.c:

"/*
 * The locking-testsuite uses <debug_locks_silent> to get a
 * 'silent failure': nothing is printed to the console when
 * a locking bug is detected.
 */
int debug_locks_silent;"

Jarek P.
-
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/