[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1300973802.14261.140.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 09:36:42 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.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 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.
>
Without going into the issue that spin_is_locked() should go into the
lockdep category, and we should restructure every user of it to use
lockdep instead...
Peter, for the immediate fix (eg. this merge window), can I have your
acked-by for this patch?
Thanks,
-- Steve
--
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