On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 07:02:10AM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote: > On 09/04/2014 01:14 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 10:50:01AM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote: > >>> So a lockdep-only assert is unlikely to draw attention to existing bugs, > >>> especially in established drivers. > >> > >> By the same logic lockdep will not find locking errors in established > >> drivers. > > > > Indeed, this patch is ill-advised in several ways: > > > > - it extends an API variant that we want to phase > > > > - emits a warning even if say lockdep has already emitted a > > warning and locking state is not guaranteed to be consistent. > > > > - makes the kernel more expensive once fully debugged, in that > > non-fatal checks are unconditional. > > Ok. > > One thing: I'm not seeing how lockdep_assert_held() switches off once > the warning has been emitted? Is the caller expected to construct their > own _ONCE tags?
Indeed, it does not do that. I suppose you can add lockdep_assert_held_once() or somesuch if you think the once thing is important. -- 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/
