On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 11:57:31AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Since the removal of FS_RECLAIM annotations, lockdep states contain six > characters, not four. Does the above want to instead say "four characters, not six"? Thanx, Paul > Fixes: e5684bbfc3f03480 ("Documentation/locking/lockdep: Update info about states") > Fixes: d92a8cfcb37ecd13 ("locking/lockdep: Rework FS_RECLAIM annotation") > Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > Documentation/RCU/lockdep-splat.txt | 6 +++--- > Documentation/locking/lockdep-design.txt | 4 ++-- > 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/lockdep-splat.txt b/Documentation/RCU/lockdep-splat.txt > index 238e9f61352f6187..9423b633526d14df 100644 > --- a/Documentation/RCU/lockdep-splat.txt > +++ b/Documentation/RCU/lockdep-splat.txt > @@ -24,11 +24,11 @@ other info that might help us debug this: > > rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 0 > 3 locks held by scsi_scan_6/1552: > - #0: (&shost->scan_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8145efca>] > + #0: (&shost->scan_mutex){+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8145efca>] > scsi_scan_host_selected+0x5a/0x150 > - #1: (&eq->sysfs_lock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff812a5032>] > + #1: (&eq->sysfs_lock){+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff812a5032>] > elevator_exit+0x22/0x60 > - #2: (&(&q->__queue_lock)->rlock){-.-...}, at: [<ffffffff812b6233>] > + #2: (&(&q->__queue_lock)->rlock){-.-.}, at: [<ffffffff812b6233>] > cfq_exit_queue+0x43/0x190 > > stack backtrace: > diff --git a/Documentation/locking/lockdep-design.txt b/Documentation/locking/lockdep-design.txt > index 49f58a07ee7b19c8..39fae143c9cbf5ff 100644 > --- a/Documentation/locking/lockdep-design.txt > +++ b/Documentation/locking/lockdep-design.txt > @@ -45,10 +45,10 @@ When locking rules are violated, these state bits are presented in the > locking error messages, inside curlies. A contrived example: > > modprobe/2287 is trying to acquire lock: > - (&sio_locks[i].lock){-.-...}, at: [<c02867fd>] mutex_lock+0x21/0x24 > + (&sio_locks[i].lock){-.-.}, at: [<c02867fd>] mutex_lock+0x21/0x24 > > but task is already holding lock: > - (&sio_locks[i].lock){-.-...}, at: [<c02867fd>] mutex_lock+0x21/0x24 > + (&sio_locks[i].lock){-.-.}, at: [<c02867fd>] mutex_lock+0x21/0x24 > > > The bit position indicates STATE, STATE-read, for each of the states listed > -- > 2.17.1 >