lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-04-29 15:19    [W:1.727 / U:0.040 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site