On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 10:10:31PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:02:33AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 07:55:00PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 09:48:34AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 01:08:45PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > When built with rcu checks enabled, vhost triggers
> > > > > bogus warnings as vhost features are read without
> > > > > dev->mutex sometimes.
> > > > > Fixing it properly is not trivial as vhost.h does not
> > > > > know which lockdep classes it will be used under.
> > > > > Disable the warning by stubbing out the check for now.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > drivers/vhost/vhost.h | 4 +---
> > > > > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vhost.h b/drivers/vhost/vhost.h
> > > > > index 2af44b7..2d03a31 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/vhost/vhost.h
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/vhost/vhost.h
> > > > > @@ -173,9 +173,7 @@ static inline int vhost_has_feature(struct vhost_dev *dev, int bit)
> > > > > {
> > > > > unsigned acked_features;
> > > > >
> > > > > - acked_features =
> > > > > - rcu_dereference_index_check(dev->acked_features,
> > > > > - lockdep_is_held(&dev->mutex));
> > > > > + acked_features = rcu_dereference_index_check(dev->acked_features, 1);
> > > >
> > > > Ouch!!!
> > > >
> > > > Could you please at least add a comment?
> > >
> > > Yes, OK.
> > >
> > > > Alternatively, pass in the lock that is held and check for that? Given
> > > > that this is a static inline, the compiler should be able to optimize
> > > > the argument away when !PROVE_RCU, correct?
> > > >
> > > > Thanx, Paul
> > >
> > > Hopefully, yes. We don't always have a lock: the idea was
> > > to create a lockdep for these cases. But we can't pass
> > > the pointer to that ...
> >
> > I suppose you could pass a pointer to the lockdep map structure.
> > Not sure if this makes sense, but it would handle the situation.
>
> Will it compile with lockdep disabled too? What will the pointer be?
One (crude) approach would be to make the pointer void* if lockdep
is disabled.
> > Alternatively, create a helper function that checks the possibilities
> > and screams if none of them are in effect.
> >
> > Thanx, Paul
>
> The problem here is the callee needs to know about all callers.
As does the guy reading the code. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
> > > > > return acked_features & (1 << bit);
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > 1.7.3.2.91.g446ac
> > > > > --
> > > > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> > > > > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > > > > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
