linux-kernel - Re: [patch v2 2/5] rtmutex: Cleanup deadlock detector debug logic

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20140604155440.7b137ee0@gandalf.local.home>
Date:	Wed, 4 Jun 2014 15:54:40 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
Subject: Re: [patch v2 2/5] rtmutex: Cleanup deadlock detector debug logic

On Wed, 4 Jun 2014 15:17:35 +0200 (CEST)
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:


> > > +static int rt_mutex_cond_detect_deadlock(struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter,
> > > +					 enum rtmutex_chainwalk detect)
> > > +{
> > > +	return debug_rt_mutex_detect_deadlock(waiter, detect);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +/*
> > 
> > I'm curious to why you created this wrapper function that adds no
> > value? Why not call debug_rt_mutex_detect_deadlock() directly?
> 
> debug_rt_mutex_detect_deadlock() smells like a magic debug feature,
> while rt_mutex_cond_detect_deadlock() clearly says; It's
> conditional.

Which brings up the next obvious question. Um, why not just rename
debug_rt_mutex_detect_deadlock() to rt_mutex_cond_detect_deadlock()?

-- 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/