Hey,
Op 13-09-12 11:59, Peter Zijlstra schreef:
> On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 11:39 +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>> It is considered good form to lock the lock you claim to be nested in.
> Uhm yeah.. cute. You actually found a site where this triggered?
>
Not in mainline, I was working on some lockdep annotations for my work on
moving ttm reservations to base kernel, and I wrote a whole bunch of tests
to stress interaction between reservations and locks, one of the tests I
was doing was taking a spinlock without the nested object:
static void reservation_test_fence_nest_unreserved(void)
{
struct reservation_object o;
reservation_object_init(&o);
spin_lock_nest_lock(&o.fence_lock, &o);
spin_unlock(&o.fence_lock);
}
I would have expected it to fail, and the patch fixed it. As a nice side effect
it also complained about another hack I was doing elsewhere with reservations to
tests for deadlocks, and it forced me to fix it in a slightly less hacky way.
~Maarten
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
