[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1209481050.13978.72.camel@twins>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:57:30 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...il.com>
Cc: ego@...ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Zdenek Kabelac <zdenek.kabelac@...il.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] lockdep: fix recursive read lock validation
On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 15:16 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com> wrote:
> > Subject: lockdep: fix recursive read lock validation
> > This means that the following sequence is now invalid, whereas previously
> > it was considered valid:
> >
> > rlock(a); rlock(b); runlock(b); runlock(a)
> > rlock(b); rlock(a);
>
> Why are you marking this sequence as invalid ? Although it can be
> debated whether it is good programming practice to be inconsistent
> about the order of read-locking, the above sequence can't be involved
> in a deadlock.
Not for pure read locks, but when you add write locks to it, it does get
deadlocky. Lockdep does not keep separate chains for read and write
locks.
--
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