[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54102FB2.1020808@hurleysoftware.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 07:02:10 -0400
From: Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
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,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/26] locking: Add non-fatal spin lock assert
On 09/04/2014 01:14 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * 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.
Ok.
One thing: I'm not seeing how lockdep_assert_held() switches off once
the warning has been emitted? Is the caller expected to construct their
own _ONCE tags?
Regards,
Peter Hurley
--
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