[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20190228105932.1274-1-geert+renesas@glider.be>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 11:59:32 +0100
From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>
To: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>
Subject: [PATCH] doc: rcu: Suspicious RCU usage is a warning
Suspicious RCU usage messages are reported as warnings.
Fixes: a5dd63efda3d07b5 ("lockdep: Use "WARNING" tag on lockdep splats")
Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>
---
And before that, they were printed as errors, which was also never
reflected in the documentation...
---
Documentation/RCU/lockdep-splat.txt | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/lockdep-splat.txt b/Documentation/RCU/lockdep-splat.txt
index 9423b633526d14df..9c015976b174123f 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/lockdep-splat.txt
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/lockdep-splat.txt
@@ -14,9 +14,9 @@ being the real world and all that.
So let's look at an example RCU lockdep splat from 3.0-rc5, one that
has long since been fixed:
-===============================
-[ INFO: suspicious RCU usage. ]
--------------------------------
+=============================
+WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
+-----------------------------
block/cfq-iosched.c:2776 suspicious rcu_dereference_protected() usage!
other info that might help us debug this:
--
2.17.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists