Re: [RFC][PATCH] lockdep: Introduce wait-type checks

From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Sun Jan 12 2014 - 04:41:07 EST

Next message: Russell King - ARM Linux: "Re: [PATCH v2 26/28] drm/i2c: tda998x: code optimization"
Previous message: Bruce Liu: "Re: [PATCH 1/1] When timestamping is enabled, stmmac_tx_clean willcall stmmac_get_tx_hwtstamp to get tx TS. It's possible that skb is NULLbecause there are other network frames that use several descriptors. So wemust return immediately in stmmac_get_tx_hwtstamp if skb is NULL to avoidsystem crash."
In reply to: Oleg Nesterov: "Re: check && lockdep_no_validate (Was: lockdep: Introducewait-type checks)"
Next in thread: Oleg Nesterov: "[PATCH 0/1] lockdep: Kill held_lock->check and "int check" arg of__lock_acquire()"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > But what I really can't understans is what "check == 0" means? It
> > seems that in fact it can be 1 or 2? Or, iow, "check == 0" is
> > actually equivalent to "check == 1" ?
>
> Hmm indeed, the comment in lockdep.h says 0 means no checks at all,
> but the code doesn't actually appear to work like that. I'm not sure
> it ever did or not, I'd have to go dig through history.
>
> That said, given the current state it certainly looks like we can
> remove the check argument.
>
> Ingo?

Agreed.

Thanks,

Ingo
--
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/