[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091109153418.GX8742@kernel.dk>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 16:34:18 +0100
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, cl@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: irq lock inversion
On Sun, Nov 08 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Nov 06 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > Read the lockdep message please, consider all the backtraces it prints,
> > > it says something different.
> >
> > In all honesty, reading and parsing lockdep messages requires a
> > special state of mind. IOW, readability is not its high point.
>
> We frequently do patches to improve the messages but there's a hard
> limit: generally the messages mirror the complexity of the underlying
> locking scenario.
>
> Unfortunately lockdep cannot pretend something is simple when it is not.
> There are two ways out of that: either to simplify the underlying
> locking rules, or to understand them.
I think the primary problem is that it tries to condense too much
information, instead of just spelling it out. That may be obvious to a
person intimately familiar with lockdep, but not to others. Things like
the STATE line, for instance. It would read a lot easier if these things
were just spelled out.
I know this message isn't really productive, just tossing it out there.
I'll try to to back it up with a patch the next time it annoys me :-)
--
Jens Axboe
--
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