linux-kernel - [tip:core/locking] lockdep: remove extra "irq" string

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 4 Mar 2009 17:39:32 GMT
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hpa@...or.com, mingo@...hat.com,
	a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...e.hu
Subject: [tip:core/locking] lockdep: remove extra "irq" string

Commit-ID:  26575e28df5eb2050c02369843faba38cecb4d8c
Gitweb:     http://git.kernel.org/tip/26575e28df5eb2050c02369843faba38cecb4d8c
Author:     "Peter Zijlstra" <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
AuthorDate: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 14:53:24 +0100
Commit:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CommitDate: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 18:38:34 +0100

lockdep: remove extra "irq" string

Impact: clarify lockdep printk text

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>
LKML-Reference: <1236175192.5330.7585.camel@...top>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>


---
 kernel/lockdep.c |    4 ++--
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/lockdep.c b/kernel/lockdep.c
index ef6584f..02014f7 100644
--- a/kernel/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/lockdep.c
@@ -1900,9 +1900,9 @@ print_irq_inversion_bug(struct task_struct *curr, struct lock_class *other,
 		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/