[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1174548157.16411.4.camel@twins>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 08:22:37 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>, Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Folkert van Heusden <folkert@...heusden.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lockdep: lockdep_depth vs. debug_locks Re: [2.6.20]
BUG: workqueue leaked lock
On Thu, 2007-03-22 at 07:11 +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> Here is some joke:
>
> [PATCH] lockdep: lockdep_depth vs. debug_locks
>
> lockdep really shouldn't be used when debug_locks == 0!
This happens then lockdep reports a fatal error, at which point
it will stop tracking locks and leave whatever state was there.
> Reported-by: Folkert van Heusden <folkert@...heusden.com>
> Inspired-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
> Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>
This looks sane, thanks for figuring this out.
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
> ---
>
> diff -Nurp 2.6.21-rc4-git4-/include/linux/lockdep.h 2.6.21-rc4-git4/include/linux/lockdep.h
> --- 2.6.21-rc4-git4-/include/linux/lockdep.h 2007-03-20 20:24:17.000000000 +0100
> +++ 2.6.21-rc4-git4/include/linux/lockdep.h 2007-03-21 22:32:41.000000000 +0100
> @@ -245,7 +245,7 @@ extern void lock_release(struct lockdep_
>
> # define INIT_LOCKDEP .lockdep_recursion = 0,
>
> -#define lockdep_depth(tsk) ((tsk)->lockdep_depth)
> +#define lockdep_depth(tsk) (debug_locks ? (tsk)->lockdep_depth : 0)
>
> #else /* !LOCKDEP */
>
-
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