[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140904051411.GA27350@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 07:14:11 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
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,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/26] locking: Add non-fatal spin lock assert
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> 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.
Indeed, this patch is ill-advised in several ways:
- it extends an API variant that we want to phase
- emits a warning even if say lockdep has already emitted a
warning and locking state is not guaranteed to be consistent.
- makes the kernel more expensive once fully debugged, in that
non-fatal checks are unconditional.
Also please submit locking related patches as standalone series
to the locking subsystem, not embedded in an unrelated series.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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