[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20061219094432.GA1699@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 10:44:32 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
Cc: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] lock debugging: fix DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON() & debug_locks_silent
* Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 10:31:35AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl> wrote:
> >
> > > > if (unlikely(c)) { \
> > > > - if (debug_locks_silent || debug_locks_off()) \
> > > > + if (!debug_locks_silent && debug_locks_off()) \
> >
> > btw., updated patch is below - the right order is to first do
> > debug_locks_off(), then debug_locks_silent.
>
> Then how does one re-enable lock debugging after running the locking
> testsuite?
see the lib/locking-selftest.c:locking_selftest() function, if all
testcases pass then it re-enables lock debugging. If a testcase turns
off lock debugging because it triggers a bug (as many of them
legitimately do), then reset_locks()->lockdep_reset() will set
debug_locks back to 1.
Ingo
-
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