Re: [PATCH v2] zd1211rw: replace ZD_ASSERT with lockdep_assert_held()

[Julian Calaby]

Hi Sanjeev,

On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 8:36 PM, Sharma, Sanjeev
<Sanjeev_Sharma@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Johannes Berg [mailto:johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 3:42 PM
> To: Sharma, Sanjeev
> Cc: dsd@xxxxxxxxxx; kune@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] zd1211rw: replace ZD_ASSERT with lockdep_assert_held()
>
> On Thu, 2014-09-11 at 15:39 +0530, Sanjeev Sharma wrote:
>> on some architecture spin_is_locked() always return false in
>> uniprocessor configuration and therefore it would be advise to replace
>> with lockdep_assert_held().
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sanjeev Sharma <Sanjeev_Sharma@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> Changes in v2:
>>   - corrected the typo
>
>> Now it compiles, but you got the logic wrong.
>
>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/zd1211rw/zd_mac.c
>> @@ -235,7 +235,7 @@ void zd_mac_clear(struct zd_mac *mac)  {
>>       flush_workqueue(zd_workqueue);
>>       zd_chip_clear(&mac->chip);
>> -     ZD_ASSERT(!spin_is_locked(&mac->lock));
>> +     lockdep_assert_held(&mac->lock);
>>       ZD_MEMCLEAR(mac, sizeof(struct zd_mac));  }
>
>>Look closely at this again.
>
> I didn't understand where I  put wrong logic  ?

I find it helps to spell out what code is doing in words.

E.g. the line you're removing is:
ZD_ASSERT(!spin_is_locked(&mac->lock));

So, we'll assert when spin_is_locked(&mac->lock) is false, i.e. when
mac->lock is not spin locked.

This isn't the same as what you're replacing it with.

Thanks,

-- 
Julian Calaby

Email: julian.calaby@xxxxxxxxx
Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/julian.calaby/
--
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/