[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140113170609.GA9873@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 18:06:09 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] lockdep: Kill held_lock->check and "int check" arg
of __lock_acquire()
On 01/12, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> The "int check" argument of lock_acquire() and held_lock->check
> are misleading and unneeded. This is only used as a boolean, 2
> denotes "true", everything else is "false". And this boolean is
> always equal to prove_locking.
>
> The only exception is __lockdep_no_validate__ which should make
> this condition "false" in validate_chain().
And I missed mark_irqflags(),
> @@ -3136,7 +3130,7 @@ static int __lock_acquire(struct lockdep_map *lock, unsigned int subclass,
> hlock->holdtime_stamp = lockstat_clock();
> #endif
>
> - if (check == 2 && !mark_irqflags(curr, hlock))
> + if (prove_locking && !mark_irqflags(curr, hlock))
> return 0;
This change is not right, at least it is not equivalent.
And I just realized that rcu_lock_acquire() does lock_acquire(check => 1).
Probably we can mark rcu_lock_map's as __lockdep_no_validate__.
Anything else I missed?
Oleg.
--
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