Re: [PATCH 1/1] lockdep: Kill held_lock->check and "int check" argof __lock_acquire()

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 01/12, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> The "int check" argument of lock_acquire() and held_lock->check
> are misleading and unneeded. This is only used as a boolean, 2
> denotes "true", everything else is "false". And this boolean is
> always equal to prove_locking.
>
> The only exception is __lockdep_no_validate__ which should make
> this condition "false" in validate_chain().

And I missed mark_irqflags(),

> @@ -3136,7 +3130,7 @@ static int __lock_acquire(struct lockdep_map *lock, unsigned int subclass,
>  	hlock->holdtime_stamp = lockstat_clock();
>  #endif
>
> -	if (check == 2 && !mark_irqflags(curr, hlock))
> +	if (prove_locking && !mark_irqflags(curr, hlock))
>  		return 0;

This change is not right, at least it is not equivalent.

And I just realized that rcu_lock_acquire() does lock_acquire(check => 1).
Probably we can mark rcu_lock_map's as __lockdep_no_validate__.

Anything else I missed?

Oleg.

--
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/