![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread Patch in this message |
* Barry K. Nathan <barryn@pobox.com> wrote: > On 6/4/06, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote: > >reporting the first one only is necessary, because the validator cannot > >trust a system's dependency info that it sees as incorrect. Deadlock > >possibilities are quite rare in a kernel that is "in balance". Right now > >we are not "in balance" yet, because the validator has only been added a > >couple of days ago. The flurry of initial fixes will die down quickly. > > So, does that mean the plan is to annotate/tweak things in order to > shut up *each and every* false positive in the kernel? yes. Note that for the many reasons i outlined before they are only "half false positives" - i.e. they are potentially dangerous constructs and they are potentially inefficient - hence we _want to_ document them in the code, to increase the cleanliness of the kernel. A pure "false positive" would be a totally valid and perfect locking construct being flagged by the lock validator. nor do these warnings really hurt anyone. Lockdep prints info and then shuts up - the system continues to work. > Anyway, I tried your patch and I got this: please try the addon patch below. Ingo Index: linux/fs/reiser4/txnmgr.h =================================================================== --- linux.orig/fs/reiser4/txnmgr.h +++ linux/fs/reiser4/txnmgr.h @@ -567,7 +567,7 @@ static inline void spin_unlock_txnh(txn_ LOCK_CNT_DEC(spin_locked_txnh); LOCK_CNT_DEC(spin_locked); - spin_unlock(&(txnh->hlock)); + spin_unlock_non_nested(&(txnh->hlock)); } #define spin_ordering_pred_txnmgr(tmgr) \ - 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/ | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-06-05 10:15 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||