lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Nov]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: irq lock inversion
On Sun, Nov 08 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Nov 06 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > Read the lockdep message please, consider all the backtraces it prints,
> > > it says something different.
> >
> > In all honesty, reading and parsing lockdep messages requires a
> > special state of mind. IOW, readability is not its high point.
>
> We frequently do patches to improve the messages but there's a hard
> limit: generally the messages mirror the complexity of the underlying
> locking scenario.
>
> Unfortunately lockdep cannot pretend something is simple when it is not.
> There are two ways out of that: either to simplify the underlying
> locking rules, or to understand them.

I think the primary problem is that it tries to condense too much
information, instead of just spelling it out. That may be obvious to a
person intimately familiar with lockdep, but not to others. Things like
the STATE line, for instance. It would read a lot easier if these things
were just spelled out.

I know this message isn't really productive, just tossing it out there.
I'll try to to back it up with a patch the next time it annoys me :-)

--
Jens Axboe



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-11-09 16:55    [W:0.047 / U:0.228 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site