On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 01:51:03AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 09:43:59AM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > > I wonder why doing debug_locks_off depends here on > > debug_lock_silent state which is only "esthetical" > > flag. And debug_locks_off() takes into consideration > > debug_lock_silent after all. So IMHO: > > It's not 'aesthetic' at all. It's used to say "We are about to cause a > locking failure deliberately as part of the test suite". It would be > wrong to disable lock debugging as a result of running the test suite.
So it's probably something with my English... >From lib/debug_locks.c: "/* * The locking-testsuite uses <debug_locks_silent> to get a * 'silent failure': nothing is printed to the console when * a locking bug is detected. */ int debug_locks_silent;" Jarek P. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
