[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131016205207.GE10651@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 22:52:07 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
Cc: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree
Hey Neil;
it looks like its one of your patches isn't it?
http://www.spinics.net/lists/raid/msg44100.html
http://www.spinics.net/lists/raid/msg44101.html
Given that I can't find them in a lkml archive means nobody's ever seen
those patches.
Anyway; has that 3/3 patch ever been ran with lockdep enabled?
Stuff like:
+ for (i = 0; i < NR_STRIPE_HASH_LOCKS; i++)
+ spin_lock_init(conf->hash_locks + i);
And:
+static void __lock_all_hash_locks(struct r5conf *conf)
+{
+ int i;
+ for (i = 0; i < NR_STRIPE_HASH_LOCKS; i++)
+ spin_lock(conf->hash_locks + i);
+}
Tends to complain real loud.
This leaves one to wonder...
'fancy' locking scheme:1, validation effort:0
--
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