Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 13 May 2014 19:53:36 -0400 | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Subject | Re: [patch 1/3] rtmutex: Add missing deadlock check |
| |
On Tue, 13 May 2014 16:27:11 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 06:44:30PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Tue, 13 May 2014 15:00:09 -0700 > > "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Good points -- I was indeed thinking about stress testing instead of > > > algorithmic testing. > > > > But doesn't lockdep use algorithmic tests too? > > I suppose you could argue that there is no such thing as non-algorithmic > testing, given that all test code uses an algorithm of some sort. Perhaps > with the exception of letting your pet walk across the keyboard. ;-) > > Perhaps I should have instead said that I was thinking about random > testing instead of formal testing?
Actually it still applies, but I was mistaken, it's not lockdep itself, it's the LOCKING_API_SELFTESTS. They are a form of formal testing as suppose to random testing.
See lib/locking-selftest.c.
That looks more like something we can do for the rtmutex code, or even add to it.
-- Steve
| |