On Wed, 2006-07-05 at 13:23 +1000, Nathan Scott wrote: > On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 11:12:47AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > That would be good, but it doesn't work for all situations > > > unfortunately, and it would loose that debug-kernel sanity checking > > > that we have in there which validates ilock/iolock ordering rules. > > > > do you have anything in there that spinlock/mutex debugging or lockdep > > does not catch? If yes then i'll add it to the generic lock debugging > > code. > > The thing we're catching automatically there is potential ordering > violations on the XFS inode iolock vs ilock. lockdep will catch those just fine. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
