[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140513232710.GA18164@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 16:27:11 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Darren Hart <darren@...art.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...k.frob.com>,
Carlos ODonell <carlos@...hat.com>,
Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/3] rtmutex: Add missing deadlock check
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 06:44:30PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 13 May 2014 15:00:09 -0700
> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Good points -- I was indeed thinking about stress testing instead of
> > algorithmic testing.
>
> But doesn't lockdep use algorithmic tests too?
I suppose you could argue that there is no such thing as non-algorithmic
testing, given that all test code uses an algorithm of some sort. Perhaps
with the exception of letting your pet walk across the keyboard. ;-)
Perhaps I should have instead said that I was thinking about random
testing instead of formal testing?
Thanx, Paul
--
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