[lkml]   [2002]   [Jul]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: spinlock assertion macros
Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Thursday 11 July 2002 01:36, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 12:24:06AM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > Acme, which is to replace all those above-the-function lock coverage
> > > comments with assert-like thingies:
> > >
> > > spin_assert(&pagemap_lru_lock);
> > >
> > > And everbody knows what that does: when compiled with no spinlock
> > > debugging it does nothing, but with spinlock debugging enabled, it oopses
> > > unless pagemap_lru_lock is held at that point in the code. The practical
> > > effect of this is that lots of 3 line comments get replaced with a
> > > one line assert that actually does something useful. That is, besides
> > > documenting the lock coverage, this thing will actually check to see if
> > > you're telling the truth, if you ask it to.
> > >
> > > Oh, and they will stay up to date much better than the comments do,
> > > because nobody needs to to be an ueber-hacker to turn on the option and
> > > post any resulting oopses to lkml.
> >
> > Sounds like a great idea to me. Were you thinking of something along
> > the lines of what I have below or perhaps something more
> > sophisticated? I suppose it would be helpful to have the name of the
> > lock in addition to the file and line number...
> I was thinking of something as simple as:
> #define spin_assert_locked(LOCK) BUG_ON(!spin_is_locked(LOCK))
> but in truth I'd be happy regardless of the internal implementation. A note
> on names: Linus likes to shout the names of his BUG macros. I've never been
> one for shouting, but it's not my kernel, and anyway, I'm happy he now likes
> asserts. I bet he'd like it more spelled like this though:
> MUST_HOLD(&lock);
> And, dare I say it, what I'd *really* like to happen when the thing triggers
> is to get dropped into kdb. Ah well, perhaps in a parallel universe...

I should hope that, when BUG executes the unimplemented
instruction, it does go directly to kdb. It certainly does
with my kgdb, as do all Oops, NULL dereferences, etc., etc.
> When one of these things triggers I do think you want everything to come to
> a screeching halt, since, to misquote Matrix, "you're already dead", and you
> don't want any one-per-year warnings to slip off into the gloomy depths of
> some forgotten log file.
> --
> Daniel
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to
> More majordomo info at
> Please read the FAQ at

George Anzinger
Real time sched:
Preemption patch:
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:27    [W:0.091 / U:0.332 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site