Re: [PATCH 2/3] lockdep: Introduce lock_acquire_might()

2017-09-25 Thread Byungchul Park
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 09:35:02AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 09:22:39AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 11:29:13AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > > > From the point of view of crossrelease, we can never be aware of the > > > release context in a

Re: [PATCH 2/3] lockdep: Introduce lock_acquire_might()

2017-09-11 Thread Byungchul Park
On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 09:22:39AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 11:29:13AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > > From the point of view of crossrelease, we can never be aware of the > > release context in advance, until we get to the lock_release(). > > However, this way we can

Re: [PATCH 2/3] lockdep: Introduce lock_acquire_might()

2017-09-05 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 11:29:13AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > From the point of view of crossrelease, we can never be aware of the > release context in advance, until we get to the lock_release(). > However, this way we cannot report deadlocks occured at the time. > > Sometimes, we want to rep

[PATCH 2/3] lockdep: Introduce lock_acquire_might()

2017-09-04 Thread Byungchul Park
>From the point of view of crossrelease, we can never be aware of the release context in advance, until we get to the lock_release(). However, this way we cannot report deadlocks occured at the time. Sometimes, we want to report that kind of problems, taking a risk generating false dependencies e.