Re: [PATCH] lockdep: lockdep_depth vs. debug_locks Re: [2.6.20]BUG: workqueue leaked lock

[Andrew Morton]

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 07:11:19 +0100 Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@xxxxx> wrote:

> 
> Here is some joke:
> 
> [PATCH] lockdep: lockdep_depth vs. debug_locks
> 
> lockdep really shouldn't be used when debug_locks == 0!
> 

This isn't a very good changelog.

> 
> Reported-by: Folkert van Heusden <folkert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Inspired-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@xxxxx>
> 
> ---
> 
> diff -Nurp 2.6.21-rc4-git4-/include/linux/lockdep.h 2.6.21-rc4-git4/include/linux/lockdep.h
> --- 2.6.21-rc4-git4-/include/linux/lockdep.h	2007-03-20 20:24:17.000000000 +0100
> +++ 2.6.21-rc4-git4/include/linux/lockdep.h	2007-03-21 22:32:41.000000000 +0100
> @@ -245,7 +245,7 @@ extern void lock_release(struct lockdep_
>  
>  # define INIT_LOCKDEP				.lockdep_recursion = 0,
>  
> -#define lockdep_depth(tsk)	((tsk)->lockdep_depth)
> +#define lockdep_depth(tsk)	(debug_locks ? (tsk)->lockdep_depth : 0)
>  
>  #else /* !LOCKDEP */
>  

What problem does this solve, and how does it solve it?

I assume that some codepath is incrementing ->lockdep_depth even when
debug_locks==0.  Isn't that wrong of it?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/