On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:12 PM, Maarten Lankhorst
wrote:
>>> +static void ww_test_spin_nest_unlocked(void)
>>> +{
>>> +raw_spin_lock_nest_lock(&lock_A, &o.base);
>>> +U(A);
>>> +}
>> I don't quite see the point of this one here ...
> It's a lockdep test that was missing. o.base is not lo
Op 28-05-13 21:18, Daniel Vetter schreef:
> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 04:48:45PM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>> This stresses the lockdep code in some ways specifically useful to
>> ww_mutexes. It adds checks for most of the common locking errors.
>>
>> Changes since v1:
>> - Add tests to verify
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 04:48:45PM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> This stresses the lockdep code in some ways specifically useful to
> ww_mutexes. It adds checks for most of the common locking errors.
>
> Changes since v1:
> - Add tests to verify reservation_id is untouched.
> - Use L() and U
This stresses the lockdep code in some ways specifically useful to
ww_mutexes. It adds checks for most of the common locking errors.
Changes since v1:
- Add tests to verify reservation_id is untouched.
- Use L() and U() macros where possible.
Changes since v2:
- Use the ww_mutex api directly.
