Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 2 Oct 2020 15:09:29 +0200 | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Subject | Re: lockdep null-ptr-deref |
| |
On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 08:36:02PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> But what if f2() is called with interrupt disabled? Or f2() disables > interrupt inside the function, like: > > void f2(...) > { > local_irq_disable(); > spin_lock(&B); > g(...); > ... > local_irq_enable(); > } > > In this case, there wouldn't be any LOCK_ENABLED_*_READ usage for > rwlock_t A. As a result, we won't see it in the lockdep splat.
Hurm, fair enough. So just to make sure, you're arguing for:
-#define LOCK_TRACE_STATES (XXX_LOCK_USAGE_STATES*4 + 1) +#define LOCK_TRACE_STATES (XXX_LOCK_USAGE_STATES*4 + 2)
On top of my earlier patch, right?
| |