lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Sep]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] zd1211rw: replace ZD_ASSERT with lockdep_assert_held()
Hi Sanjeev,

On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 8:36 PM, Sharma, Sanjeev
<Sanjeev_Sharma@mentor.com> wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Johannes Berg [mailto:johannes@sipsolutions.net]
> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 3:42 PM
> To: Sharma, Sanjeev
> Cc: dsd@gentoo.org; kune@deine-taler.de; linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; netdev@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] zd1211rw: replace ZD_ASSERT with lockdep_assert_held()
>
> On Thu, 2014-09-11 at 15:39 +0530, Sanjeev Sharma wrote:
>> on some architecture spin_is_locked() always return false in
>> uniprocessor configuration and therefore it would be advise to replace
>> with lockdep_assert_held().
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sanjeev Sharma <Sanjeev_Sharma@mentor.com>
>> ---
>> Changes in v2:
>> - corrected the typo
>
>> Now it compiles, but you got the logic wrong.
>
>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/zd1211rw/zd_mac.c
>> @@ -235,7 +235,7 @@ void zd_mac_clear(struct zd_mac *mac) {
>> flush_workqueue(zd_workqueue);
>> zd_chip_clear(&mac->chip);
>> - ZD_ASSERT(!spin_is_locked(&mac->lock));
>> + lockdep_assert_held(&mac->lock);
>> ZD_MEMCLEAR(mac, sizeof(struct zd_mac)); }
>
>>Look closely at this again.
>
> I didn't understand where I put wrong logic ?

I find it helps to spell out what code is doing in words.

E.g. the line you're removing is:
ZD_ASSERT(!spin_is_locked(&mac->lock));

So, we'll assert when spin_is_locked(&mac->lock) is false, i.e. when
mac->lock is not spin locked.

This isn't the same as what you're replacing it with.

Thanks,

--
Julian Calaby

Email: julian.calaby@gmail.com
Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/julian.calaby/


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-09-15 08:41    [W:0.074 / U:0.200 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site