Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 4 Aug 2008 10:53:18 -0400 | From | Dave Jones <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH 7/7] lockdep: spin_lock_nest_lock() |
| |
On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 04:32:12PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > 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?
More puzzling, is why hasn't this triggered in the Fedora rawhide kernels, which do have lockdep enabled.
Dave
-- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
| |