Re: [PATCH 1/8] lockdep: fix recursive read lock validation

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 15:16 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Gautham R Shenoy <ego@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Subject: lockdep: fix recursive read lock validation
> >  This means that the following sequence is now invalid, whereas previously
> >  it was considered valid:
> >
> >   rlock(a); rlock(b); runlock(b); runlock(a)
> >   rlock(b); rlock(a);
> 
> Why are you marking this sequence as invalid ? Although it can be
> debated whether it is good programming practice to be inconsistent
> about the order of read-locking, the above sequence can't be involved
> in a deadlock.

Not for pure read locks, but when you add write locks to it, it does get
deadlocky. Lockdep does not keep separate chains for read and write
locks.

--
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/