[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140903150729.GA7436@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 17:07:29 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/26] locking: Add non-fatal spin lock assert
On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 10:50:01AM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
> So a lockdep-only assert is unlikely to draw attention to existing bugs,
> especially in established drivers.
By the same logic lockdep will not find locking errors in established
drivers.
--
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