[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150416155028.GT27490@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 17:50:28 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Andreas Messerschmid <andreas@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lockdep: make print_lock_name() robust against
non-existing lock_class
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 05:39:36PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra | 2015-04-16 17:35:03 [+0200]:
>
> >On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 04:50:21PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> >
> >> Andreas confirmed that it works for him on v3.18 with minor adjustment.
> >>
> >> <---
> >> + struct held_lock lock = READ_ONCE(*hlock);
> >> + unsigned int class_idx = lock.class_idx;
> >> --->
> >>
> >
> >I'm confused by the need for that. What was the failure with the
> >proposed patch?
>
> It was tested on v3.18, there might have been a change between v3.18 &
> 4.0. The patch as-is did no compile:
Yeah, I might not have compiled it..
> in file included from arch/x86/include/asm/current.h:4:0,
> from include/linux/mutex.h:13,
> from kernel/locking/lockdep.c:29:
> kernel/locking/lockdep.c: In function ‘print_lock’:
> kernel/locking/lockdep.c:558:37: error: ‘typeof’ applied to a bit-field
> unsigned int class_idx = READ_ONCE(hlock->class_idx);
Ah! Indeed so, copying all of the hlock is overdoing it a bit but would
work I suppose.
Thanks!
--
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