[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1236175192.5330.7585.camel@laptop>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 14:59:52 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH] lockdep: remove extra "irq" string
Subject: lockdep: remove extra "irq" string
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Date: Wed Mar 04 14:53:24 CET 2009
print_irq_inversion_bug() gets handed state strings of the form
"HARDIRQ", "SOFTIRQ", "RECLAIM_FS"
and appends "-irq-{un,}safe" to them, which is either redudant for *IRQ or
confusing in the RECLAIM_FS case.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
---
kernel/lockdep.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Index: linux-2.6/kernel/lockdep.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/lockdep.c
+++ linux-2.6/kernel/lockdep.c
@@ -1901,9 +1901,9 @@ print_irq_inversion_bug(struct task_stru
curr->comm, task_pid_nr(curr));
print_lock(this);
if (forwards)
- printk("but this lock took another, %s-irq-unsafe lock in the past:\n", irqclass);
+ printk("but this lock took another, %s-unsafe lock in the past:\n", irqclass);
else
- printk("but this lock was taken by another, %s-irq-safe lock in the past:\n", irqclass);
+ printk("but this lock was taken by another, %s-safe lock in the past:\n", irqclass);
print_lock_name(other);
printk("\n\nand interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.\n\n");
--
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