Re: [patch] lock debugging: fix DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON() & debug_locks_silent

[Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl>]

On 16-12-2006 09:04, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx> wrote:
...
> Bug-found-by: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>
> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> ---
>  include/linux/debug_locks.h |    2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> Index: linux/include/linux/debug_locks.h
> ===================================================================
> --- linux.orig/include/linux/debug_locks.h
> +++ linux/include/linux/debug_locks.h
> @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ extern int debug_locks_off(void);
>  	int __ret = 0;							\
>  									\
>  	if (unlikely(c)) {						\
> -		if (debug_locks_silent || debug_locks_off())		\
> +		if (!debug_locks_silent && debug_locks_off())		\
>  			WARN_ON(1);					\
>  		__ret = 1;						\
>  	}								\

I wonder why doing debug_locks_off depends here on
debug_lock_silent state which is only "esthetical"
flag. And debug_locks_off() takes into consideration
debug_lock_silent after all. So IMHO:

	if (unlikely(c)) {						\
		if (debug_locks_off())					\
			WARN_ON(1);					\
		__ret = 1;						\
	}								\

Jarek P.
-
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/