[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220510232633.GA18445@X58A-UD3R>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2022 08:26:33 +0900
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
adilger.kernel@...ger.ca, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
mingo@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
peterz@...radead.org, will@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
joel@...lfernandes.org, sashal@...nel.org, daniel.vetter@...ll.ch,
chris@...is-wilson.co.uk, duyuyang@...il.com,
johannes.berg@...el.com, tj@...nel.org, tytso@....edu,
willy@...radead.org, david@...morbit.com, amir73il@...il.com,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, kernel-team@....com,
linux-mm@...ck.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mhocko@...nel.org,
minchan@...nel.org, hannes@...xchg.org, vdavydov.dev@...il.com,
sj@...nel.org, jglisse@...hat.com, dennis@...nel.org, cl@...ux.com,
penberg@...nel.org, rientjes@...gle.com, vbabka@...e.cz,
ngupta@...are.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
paolo.valente@...aro.org, josef@...icpanda.com,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
jack@...e.cz, jack@...e.com, jlayton@...nel.org,
dan.j.williams@...el.com, hch@...radead.org, djwong@...nel.org,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, airlied@...ux.ie,
rodrigosiqueiramelo@...il.com, melissa.srw@...il.com,
hamohammed.sa@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v6 00/21] DEPT(Dependency Tracker)
On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 10:12:54AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 10 May 2022 08:38:38 +0900
> Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com> wrote:
>
> > Yes, I was talking about A and L'.
> >
> > > detect that regardless of L. A nested lock associates the the nesting with
> >
> > When I checked Lockdep code, L' with depth n + 1 and L' with depth n
> > have different classes in Lockdep.
>
> If that's the case, then that's a bug in lockdep.
Yes, agree. I should've said 'Lockdep doesn't detect it currently.'
rather than 'Lockdep can't detect it.'.
I also think we make it for this case by fixing the bug in Lockdep.
> >
> > That's why I said Lockdep cannot detect it. By any chance, has it
> > changed so as to consider this case? Or am I missing something?
>
> No, it's not that lockdep cannot detect it, it should detect it. If it is
> not detecting it, then we need to fix that.
Yes.
Byungchul
>
> -- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists