[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49B55A6F.4010001@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2009 11:05:35 -0700
From: Darren Hart <dvhltc@...ibm.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC: "lkml, " <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>,
Sripathi Kodi <sripathik@...ibm.com>,
John Stultz <johnstul@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [TIP][RFC 4/7] futex: finish_futex_lock_pi()
Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Mar 2009, Darren Hart wrote:
>> + } else {
>> + /* dvhart FIXME: can't we just BUG_ON in this case?
>
> No. There is no reason to crash the kernel if this happens. All what
> happens is that a userspace application becomes a bit unhappy.
>
> I did not put a WARN_ON there as the stack trace is known, but we
> could do a WARN to trigger the kerneloops detector.
OK, no need for a change. Easy enough to add debug if someone were to
hit it.
>
>> + * Paranoia check. If we did not take the lock in the trylock
>> + * above, then we should not be the owner of the rtmutex,
>> + * neither the real nor the pending one:
>> + */
>> + if (rt_mutex_owner(&q->pi_state->pi_mutex) == current)
>> + printk(KERN_ERR "finish_futex_lock_pi: "
>> + "ret = %d pi-mutex: %p "
>> + "pi-state %p\n", ret,
>> + q->pi_state->pi_mutex.owner,
>> + q->pi_state->owner);
>> + }
>
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
--
Darren Hart
IBM Linux Technology Center
Real-Time Linux Team
--
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