[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20190517212234.32611-1-bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 23:22:34 +0200
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, tglx@...utronix.de,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Subject: [PATCH] locking/lockdep: Don't complain about wrong name for no validate class
It is possible to ignore the validation for a certain log be using
lockdep_set_novalidate_class()
on it. Each invocation will assign a new name to the class it created
for created __lockdep_no_validate__. That means that once
lockdep_set_novalidate_class() has been used on two locks then
class->name won't match lock->name for the first lock triggering the
warning.
Ignoring changed non-matching ->name pointer for the
__lockdep_no_validate__ class.
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
---
kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
index d06190fa50822..38be69d344f7f 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
@@ -731,7 +731,8 @@ look_up_lock_class(const struct lockdep_map *lock, unsigned int subclass)
* Huh! same key, different name? Did someone trample
* on some memory? We're most confused.
*/
- WARN_ON_ONCE(class->name != lock->name);
+ WARN_ON_ONCE(class->name != lock->name &&
+ lock->key != &__lockdep_no_validate__);
return class;
}
}
--
2.20.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists