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    [W:0.029 / U:150.556 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site