On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 07:41:32PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> So far so good, excellent work.
>
> On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 03:42:33PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > @@ -371,6 +371,21 @@ static struct hlist_head classhash_table[CLASSHASH_SIZE];
> >
> > static struct hlist_head chainhash_table[CHAINHASH_SIZE];
> >
> > +/*
> > + * the id of held_lock
> > + */
> > +static inline u16 hlock_id(struct held_lock *hlock)
> > +{
> > + BUILD_BUG_ON(MAX_LOCKDEP_KEYS_BITS + 2 > 16);
> > +
> > + return (hlock->class_idx | (hlock->read << MAX_LOCKDEP_KEYS_BITS));
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline unsigned int chain_hlock_class_idx(u16 hlock_id)
> > +{
> > + return hlock_id & MAX_LOCKDEP_KEYS;
>
> But did that want to be:
>
> return hlock_id & (MAX_LOCKDEP_KEYS-1);
>
Right, clearly I'm missing the fact we have change the definition of
MAX_LOCKDEP_KEYS at commit 01bb6f0af992 ("locking/lockdep: Change the
range of class_idx in held_lock struct").
Thanks for catching this!
Regards,
Boqun
> ?
>
> > +}
