lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Aug]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] lock assertion macros for 2.5.30
On Wed, 7 Aug 2002, Jesse Barnes wrote:

> > The MUST_NOT_HOLD basically means the kernel will OOPS the
> > moment the lock is contended.
>
> I think those macros were intended to enforce lock ordering in the
> scsi layer (though I'm not sure).

If you can prove that a MUST_NOT_HOLD(foolock) will never
trigger because it is already protected by other locks,
then what's the point of having that foolock in the first
place ? (since the region is already protected...)

If the foolock is actually protecting something, then by
definition lock contention is possible and the kernel will
Oops in MUST_NOT_HOLD(foolock).

> > If you want to detect lock recursion on the same CPU, I'd
> > suggest the following:
> > ...
>
> Of course, that's what the lockmetering code does, IIRC, but I think
> that's a feature for a seperate patch.

Agreed.

Btw, the MUST_HOLD macro _is_ straightforward and extremely
useful. IMHO it'd be a shame to have only the SCSI code use it ;)

regards,

Rik
--
Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH".

http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/

-
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: 2005-03-22 13:27    [W:0.153 / U:0.108 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site