[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAFqZXNuKgbq4ZKyzWvMS7yL5D4tkZA7xMJx_LTvLUoHDJwHxvw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2022 17:52:03 +0100
From: Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
SElinux list <selinux@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Semantics vs. usage of mutex_is_locked()
On Mon, Feb 7, 2022 at 4:47 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 04:15:27PM +0100, Ondrej Mosnacek wrote:
> > Also, any opinions on the name of the new helper? Perhaps
> > mutex_is_held()? Or mutex_is_locked_by_current()?
>
> lockdep_assert_held*() and friends work on mutexes just fine.
Hm, good point, although it will only work if CONFIG_LOCKDEP=y, which
is usually not enabled on production kernels... But maybe it doesn't
make sense to do the check on non-debug kernels anyway?
--
Ondrej Mosnacek
Software Engineer, Linux Security - SELinux kernel
Red Hat, Inc.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists