On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 01:51:03AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> 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.
So it's probably something with my English...
>From lib/debug_locks.c:
"/*
* The locking-testsuite uses <debug_locks_silent> to get a
* 'silent failure': nothing is printed to the console when
* a locking bug is detected.
*/
int debug_locks_silent;"
Jarek P.
-
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]