Re: [PATCH -rt 1/9] preempt rcu: check for underflow

* Daniel Walker <[email protected]> wrote:

> +	/*
> +	 * If our rcu_read_lock_nesting went negative, likely
> +	 * something is wrong..
> +	 */
> +	WARN_ON(current->rcu_read_lock_nesting < 0);

have you actually caught any rcu locking problem this way? Double 
unlocks should be caught by lockdep already, at a higher level.

in any case i've added a slightly different form of this change to the 
-rt queue that will also check for counter overflows. But i'm not sure 
we want to litter the code with trivial checks like this, so i'm keeping 
it separate and if it does not trigger anything real i'll remove it.

	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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [PATCH -rt 1/9] preempt rcu: check for underflow
    • From: Daniel Walker <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [PATCH -rt 1/9] preempt rcu: check for underflow
    • From: Daniel Walker <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] MIPS: add smp_call_function_single()
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH -rt 2/9] Dont allow non-threaded softirqs and threaded hardirqs
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH -rt 1/9] preempt rcu: check for underflow
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH -rt 1/9] preempt rcu: check for underflow
• 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]