[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070123202637.970e467b.akpm@osdl.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 20:26:37 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ltt-dev@...fik.org,
"Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@...igh.org>,
Douglas Niehaus <niehaus@...s.ku.edu>,
systemtap@...rces.redhat.com, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Richard J Moore <richardj_moore@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] lockdep missing barrier()
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 12:56:24 -0500
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca> wrote:
> This patch adds a barrier() to lockdep.c lockdep_recursion updates. This
> variable behaves like the preemption count and should therefore use similar
> memory barriers.
>
> This patch applies on 2.6.20-rc4-git3.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
>
> --- a/kernel/lockdep.c
> +++ b/kernel/lockdep.c
> @@ -166,12 +166,14 @@ static struct list_head chainhash_table[CHAINHASH_SIZE];
> void lockdep_off(void)
> {
> current->lockdep_recursion++;
> + barrier();
> }
>
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(lockdep_off);
>
> void lockdep_on(void)
> {
> + barrier();
> current->lockdep_recursion--;
> }
I am allergic to undocumented barriers. It is often unobvious what the
barrier is supposed to protect against, yielding mystifying code. This is
one such case.
Please add code comments.
-
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