* Jens Axboe <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > things may be allocated from that path, so we pass gfp_mask around. I'll
> > > double check it tonight, but I don't currently see what could be wrong.
> > > Would lockdep complain about:
> > >
> > > spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
> > > ...
> > > spin_unlock_irq(lock);
> > > ...
> > > spin_lock_irq(lock);
> > > ...
> > > spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
> >
> > this is fine for lockdep IF and only IF there is no "out lock" held
> > around this that requires irqs to be off. So if you do
> >
> > spin_lock_irqsave(lock1, flags);
> > ...
> > spin_lock_irqsave(lock2, flags);
> > spin_unlock_irq(lock2)
> > ...
> >
> > then lockdep WILL complain, and rightfully so, about a violation since
> > lock1 gets violated here ;)
>
> Naturally, that is a bug fair and simple, nothing to do with lockdep.
well, finding such locking bugs is the main purpose of lockdep, so there
is at least some connection i'd say ;-)
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]
