Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 5 Sep 2006 21:37:42 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: lockdep oddity |
| |
* Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> * Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote: > > > > The reason is that the BUILD_LOCK_OPS macros in kernel/lockdep.c > > > don't contain any of the *_acquire calls, while all of the _unlock > > > functions contain a *_release call. Hence I get immediately > > > unbalanced locks. > > > > hmmm ... that sounds like a bug. Weird - i recently ran > > PREEMPT+SMP+LOCKDEP kernels and didnt notice this. > > ok, the reason i didnt find this problem is because this is fixed in > my tree, but i didnt realize that it's a fix also for upstream ...
actually ... it works fine in the upstream kernel due to this:
* If lockdep is enabled then we use the non-preemption spin-ops * even on CONFIG_PREEMPT, because lockdep assumes that interrupts are * not re-enabled during lock-acquire (which the preempt-spin-ops do): */ #if !defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT) || !defined(CONFIG_SMP) || \ defined(CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC)
so i'm wondering, how did you you manage to get into the BUILD_LOCK_OPS() branch?
Ingo - 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/
|  |