Re: [PATCH] lock assertion macros for 2.5.30

Rik van Riel (riel@conectiva.com.br)
Thu, 8 Aug 2002 14:47:59 -0300 (BRT)


On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, Joshua MacDonald wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 02:31:40PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, Jesse Barnes wrote:

> > > Agreed. I'll post another patch that doesn't mess with the scsi
> > > stuff. Maybe later I can put together a useful
> > > 'lock-not-held-on-this-cpu' macro.
> >
> > You don't need to put this in a macro. This test is valid
> > for ALL spinlocks in the kernel and can be done from inside
> > the spin_lock() macro itself, when spinlock debugging is on.
>
> This is just not true. When you make this assertion, it doesn't mean
> you intend to take the lock. It could have to do with lock ordering, or
> it could be testing that some lock is properly released.

Hmm, I guess you might be right. This could indeed be useful
for indirectly called functions like ->open() functions in
drivers, etc...

kind regards,

Rik

-- 
	http://www.linuxsymposium.org/2002/
"You're one of those condescending OLS attendants"
"Here's a nickle kid.  Go buy yourself a real t-shirt"

http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/