On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 02:41:03PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 10:17:32PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > > diff --git a/lib/Kconfig.debug b/lib/Kconfig.debug > > index a6c8db1..7890661 100644 > > --- a/lib/Kconfig.debug > > +++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug > > @@ -1042,6 +1042,19 @@ config DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC > > spin_lock_init()/mutex_init()/etc., or whether there is any lock > > held during task exit. > > > > +config LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE > > + bool "Lock debugging: make lockdep work for crosslocks" > > + select LOCKDEP > > + select TRACE_IRQFLAGS > > + default n > > + help > > + This makes lockdep work for crosslock which is a lock allowed to > > + be released in a different context from the acquisition context. > > + Normally a lock must be released in the context acquiring the lock. > > + However, relexing this constraint helps synchronization primitives > > + such as page locks or completions can use the lock correctness > > + detector, lockdep. > > + > > config PROVE_LOCKING > > bool "Lock debugging: prove locking correctness" > > depends on DEBUG_KERNEL && TRACE_IRQFLAGS_SUPPORT && STACKTRACE_SUPPORT && LOCKDEP_SUPPORT > > > Does CROSSRELEASE && !PROVE_LOCKING make any sense? No, it does not make sense. I will fix it. Thank you. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
