Messages in this thread | | | From | Daniel Phillips <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] lock assertion macros for 2.5.30 | Date | Fri, 9 Aug 2002 05:04:17 +0200 |
| |
On Thursday 08 August 2002 19:23, Jesse Barnes wrote: > On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 07:19:21PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote: > > Looks good to me. Would be even better if you removed MUST_NOT_HOLD ;) > > Ok, here's yet another version. I've removed the conversion of the > scsi layer's ASSERT_LOCK macros as well as the silly version of > MUST_NOT_HOLD. Other things people seem interested in: > o sleeping function assertions > o lock ordering enforcement > o lock recursion detection > o more assertion checks in other parts of the kernel > > Should any of the above be included in this patch?
You would just have to break the patch up again when you submit it. You might want create a patch that demonstrates its usage, by adding some asserts to core code and removing comments where the assert makes them redundant.
> If so, I can try > to hack one or more of them together, otherwise maybe this is ok to go > in?
It's looking good.
-- Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |