2013/8/10 Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 09:55:14AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 11:34 PM, Paulo Zanoni <przanoni@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > 2013/8/9 Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >> >> Quick note... >> >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 05:10:05PM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote: >> >>> + WARN_ON(!mutex_is_locked(&dev_priv->pc8.lock)); >> >> >> >> Preferred form is now lockdep_assert_held(&dev_priv->pc8.lock); >> > >> > Should I also convert all our other usages of >> > WARN_ON(!mutex_is_locked()) and BUG_ON(!mutex_is_locked()) too? On a >> > separate patch, of course. We have currently no usage of >> > lockdep_assert_held, and I like consistency, so fully switching to the >> > preferred form is good IMHO. >> >> Tbh I don't understand really why lockdep_assert_held is better ... >> it's right that it also checks that indeed the current task is holding >> the lock (and not some random other imposter). But the downside is >> that it's a noop without CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING. And due to the massive >> perf impact of that option not many people actually run with it. At >> least I tend to only enable it when doing tricky locking work on my >> dev machines and not in general ... > > It doesn't shout so much and people are starting to complain about all > the sanity checks existing outside of the grand lockdep. > > Who doesn't have a few machines running with lockdep all the time? ;-) Considering we still don't have a consensus, I'll keep the WARNs so our driver stays consistent. If I see patches converting everything on our driver to lockdep_assert_held, then I'll update this patch. IMHO we should either convert everything or nothing. > -Chris > > -- > Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre -- Paulo Zanoni _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
