[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1271766716.2972.16.camel@dhcp231-113.rdu.redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 08:31:56 -0400
From: Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
To: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Miles Lane <miles.lane@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RCU: don't turn off lockdep when find suspicious
rcu_dereference_check() usage
On Tue, 2010-04-20 at 16:23 +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> [PATCH] RCU: don't turn off lockdep when find suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage
>
> When suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage is detected, lockdep is still
> available actually, so we should not call debug_locks_off() in
> lockdep_rcu_dereference().
>
> For get rid of too much "suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage"
> output when the "if(!debug_locks_off())" statement is removed. This patch uses
> static variable '__warned's for very usage of "rcu_dereference*()".
>
> One variable per usage, so, Now, we can get multiple complaint
> when we detect multiple different suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage.
>
> Requested-by: Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
Although mine was a linux-next kernel and it doesn't appear that I have
rcu_dereference_protected() at all, so I dropped that bit of the patch,
it worked great! I got 4 more complaints to harass people with. Feel
free to add my tested by if you care to.
Tested-by: Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
--
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