> > > > The reason is that the BUILD_LOCK_OPS macros in kernel/lockdep.c
> > > > don't contain any of the *_acquire calls, while all of the _unlock
> > > > functions contain a *_release call. Hence I get immediately
> > > > unbalanced locks.
> > >
> > > hmmm ... that sounds like a bug. Weird - i recently ran
> > > PREEMPT+SMP+LOCKDEP kernels and didnt notice this.
> >
> > ok, the reason i didnt find this problem is because this is fixed in
> > my tree, but i didnt realize that it's a fix also for upstream ...
>
> actually ... it works fine in the upstream kernel due to this:
>
> * If lockdep is enabled then we use the non-preemption spin-ops
> * even on CONFIG_PREEMPT, because lockdep assumes that interrupts are
> * not re-enabled during lock-acquire (which the preempt-spin-ops do):
> */
> #if !defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT) || !defined(CONFIG_SMP) || \
> defined(CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC)
>
> so i'm wondering, how did you you manage to get into the
> BUILD_LOCK_OPS() branch?
That seems to be code that isn't upstream. 2.6.18-rc5-mm1 as well as
Linus' current git tree have this:
/*
* If lockdep is enabled then we use the non-preemption spin-ops
* even on CONFIG_PREEMPT, because lockdep assumes that interrupts are
* not re-enabled during lock-acquire (which the preempt-spin-ops do):
*/
#if !defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT) || !defined(CONFIG_SMP) || \
defined(CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING)
And yes, using CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC instead of CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING fixes
this for me :)
-
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]
