lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Mar]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] lockdep: lockdep_depth vs. debug_locks Re: [2.6.20] BUG: workqueue leaked lock
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 07:11:19 +0100 Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl> wrote:

>
> Here is some joke:
>
> [PATCH] lockdep: lockdep_depth vs. debug_locks
>
> lockdep really shouldn't be used when debug_locks == 0!
>

This isn't a very good changelog.

>
> Reported-by: Folkert van Heusden <folkert@vanheusden.com>
> Inspired-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>
> Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl>
>
> ---
>
> diff -Nurp 2.6.21-rc4-git4-/include/linux/lockdep.h 2.6.21-rc4-git4/include/linux/lockdep.h
> --- 2.6.21-rc4-git4-/include/linux/lockdep.h 2007-03-20 20:24:17.000000000 +0100
> +++ 2.6.21-rc4-git4/include/linux/lockdep.h 2007-03-21 22:32:41.000000000 +0100
> @@ -245,7 +245,7 @@ extern void lock_release(struct lockdep_
>
> # define INIT_LOCKDEP .lockdep_recursion = 0,
>
> -#define lockdep_depth(tsk) ((tsk)->lockdep_depth)
> +#define lockdep_depth(tsk) (debug_locks ? (tsk)->lockdep_depth : 0)
>
> #else /* !LOCKDEP */
>

What problem does this solve, and how does it solve it?

I assume that some codepath is incrementing ->lockdep_depth even when
debug_locks==0. Isn't that wrong of it?
-
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: 2007-03-22 07:31    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site