* [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 13:33:26 PDT, Andrew Morton said:
>
> > Why does the locking validator complain about unlocking ordering?
>
> Presumably, if the lock nesting *should* be "take A, take B, release
> B, release A", if it sees "Take A, Take B, release A" it means there's
> potentially a missing 'release B' that got forgotten (most likely an
> error case that does a 'return;' instead of a 'goto
> end_of_function_cleanup' like we usually code.
>
> Having said that, I'm not sure it qualifies as a "BUG". Certainly
> would qualify for a "SMELLS_FISHY" though. But we don't have one of
> those handy, so maybe BUG is as good as it gets (given that the person
> who built the kernel *asked* to be nagged about locking funkyness)....
yes. This warning caught a couple of bugs, and documented a couple of
'fishy' places. Sometimes it's code that is totally correct. I think
it's worth the extra iteration, there arent that many non-nested
unlocking places.
straight nested unlocking is also best for performance and scalability:
the outmost lock should be released last, because that's what the
waiters are most likely to be blocking/spinning upon.
nevertheless i'll turn that warning into a less scary message.
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
