linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] WARN_ON_SMP(): Allow use in if statements on UP

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <1300451249.21794.33.camel@twins>
Date:	Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:27:29 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] WARN_ON_SMP(): Allow use in if statements on UP

On Fri, 2011-03-18 at 08:14 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-03-18 at 10:12 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 17:56 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > + * WARN_ON(!spin_is_locked(&lock)) checks, as spin_is_locked()
> > > + * returns 0 for uniprocessor settings. 
> > 
> > Arguably most spin_is_locked() usages should be removed in favour of
> > something like lockdep_assert_held().
> > 
> > The latter only emits code then built with lockdep enabled and it checks
> > we are indeed the owner, not some random other cpu.
> > 
> 
> Perhaps we should have lockdep_assert_held() also be in
> "spin_is_locked()". 

Can't since its got stronger requirements.
--
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/