* Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 05:32:29PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > +static void module_assert_mutex_or_preempt(void)
> > > +{
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
> > > + int rcu_held = rcu_read_lock_sched_held();
> > > + int mutex_held = 1;
> > > +
> > > + if (debug_locks)
> > > + mutex_held = lockdep_is_held(&module_mutex);
> > > +
> > > + WARN_ON(!rcu_held && !mutex_held);
> >
> > So because rcu_read_lock_sched_held() also depends on debug_locks
> > being on to be fully correct, shouldn't the warning also be within the
> > debug_locks condition?
>
> Ah, see how mutex_held will be true for !debug_locks and therefore we'll
> not trigger the warn.
>
> Maybe not the best way to code that though.
>
> Something like so perhaps:
>
> static void module_assert_mutex_or_preempt(void)
> {
> #ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
> if (!debug_locks)
> return;
>
> WARN_ON(!rcu_held_lock_sched_held() &&
> !lockdep_is_held(&module_mutex));
> #endif
Yeah. I'd also make it:
if (unlikely(!debug_locks))
return;
or such.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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/
