lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Feb]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] lockdep: add lockdep_assert_not_held()
From
Date
On 2/15/21 9:10 AM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Mon, 2021-02-15 at 17:04 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 02:12:30PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2021-02-15 at 11:44 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>> I think something like so will work, but please double check.
>>>
>>> Yeah, that looks better.
>>>
>>>> +++ b/include/linux/lockdep.h
>>>> @@ -294,11 +294,15 @@ extern void lock_unpin_lock(struct lockdep_map *lock, struct pin_cookie);
>>>>
>>>> #define lockdep_depth(tsk) (debug_locks ? (tsk)->lockdep_depth : 0)
>>>>
>>>> -#define lockdep_assert_held(l) do { \
>>>> - WARN_ON(debug_locks && !lockdep_is_held(l)); \
>>>> +#define lockdep_assert_held(l) do { \
>>>> + WARN_ON(debug_locks && lockdep_is_held(l) == 0)); \
>>>> } while (0)
>>>
>>> That doesn't really need to change? It's the same.
>>
>> Correct, but I found it more symmetric vs the not implementation below.
>
> Fair enough. One might argue that you should have an
>
> enum lockdep_lock_state {
> LOCK_STATE_NOT_HELD, /* 0 now */
> LOCK_STATE_HELD, /* 1 now */
> LOCK_STATE_UNKNOWN, /* -1 with your patch but might as well be 2 */
> };
>
> :)
>


Thank you both. Picking this back up. Will send v2 incorporating
your comments and suggestions.

thanks,
-- Shuah





\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-02-22 21:53    [W:0.027 / U:0.580 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site