Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:29:01 +0200 | | From | "Bart Van Assche" <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/8] lockdep: fix recursive read lock validation |
| |
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 6:15 PM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote: > > > Or: whether or not to allow a sequence like "rlock(a); rlock(b); > > runlock(b); runlock(a); rlock(b); rlock(a);" is something we can > > choose. We do not have to forbid this sequence -- we can choose > > whether or not we allow this sequence. > > I'm utterly confused now; I never argued that it would get deadlocks; > and I said I choose to not allow it from a lockdep pov. What else do you > want?
So we both agree that the statement in the original e-mail (by Gautham R Shenoy) is wrong ? The original e-mail stated that obtaining reader locks in an inconsistent order is wrong.
Bart.
|  |