lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/8] lockdep: fix recursive read lock validation
    From
    Date
    On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 15:16 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
    > 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.

    Not for pure read locks, but when you add write locks to it, it does get
    deadlocky. Lockdep does not keep separate chains for read and write
    locks.



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-04-29 16:59    [W:0.022 / U:3.536 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site