[lkml]   [2008]   [Aug]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 7/7] lockdep: spin_lock_nest_lock()
On Mon, 2008-08-04 at 07:26 -0700, Roland Dreier wrote:
> > No more than 48 locks (mutexes, rwlocks, spinlock, RCU, everything
> > covered by lockdep) held by any one code-path; including nested
> > interrupt contexts.
> Does that mean that something like the new mm_take_all_locks() operation
> is going to explode if someone tries to use it with lockdep on?

Gah - yes, clearly nobody tried this.. :-/

Just looking at the code it will not only run into this limit, but it
would warn about recursion on the second file/anon vma due to utter lack
of annotation.

Why are people still developing without lockdep?

/me sad

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-08-04 16:35    [W:0.082 / U:44.736 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site