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

On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 09:43:59AM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> 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:

It's not 'aesthetic' at all.  It's used to say "We are about to cause a
locking failure deliberately as part of the test suite".  It would be
wrong to disable lock debugging as a result of running the test suite.
-
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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [patch] lock debugging: fix DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON() & debug_locks_silent
    • From: Jarek Poplawski <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [patch] lock debugging: fix DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON() & debug_locks_silent
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch] lock debugging: fix DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON() & debug_locks_silent
    • From: Jarek Poplawski <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [patch 1/2] agpgart - allow user-populated memory types.
• Next by Date: Re: 2.6.19 file content corruption on ext3
• Previous by thread: Re: [patch] lock debugging: fix DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON() & debug_locks_silent
• Next by thread: Re: [patch] lock debugging: fix DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON() & debug_locks_silent
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]