Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:16:52 +0200 | From | "Bart Van Assche" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/8] lockdep: fix recursive read lock validation |
| |
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Gautham R Shenoy <ego@in.ibm.com> wrote: > Subject: lockdep: fix recursive read lock validation > This means that the following sequence is now invalid, whereas previously > it was considered valid: > > rlock(a); rlock(b); runlock(b); runlock(a) > rlock(b); rlock(a);
Why are you marking this sequence as invalid ? Although it can be debated whether it is good programming practice to be inconsistent about the order of read-locking, the above sequence can't be involved in a deadlock.
Bart.
| |