On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 06:06:48AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > Unfortunately for you, I don't find arguments along the lines of
> > "lockdep will save us" at all convincing. lockdep already throws
> > too many false positives to be useful as a tool that reliably and
> > accurately points out rare, exciting, complex, intricate locking
> > problems.
>
> But it does reliably and accurately point out "dude, you forgot to take
> the lock". It's caught a number of real problems in my own testing that
> you never got to see.
The problem is that if it has too many false positives --- and it's
gotten *way* worse with the completion callback "feature", people will
just stop using Lockdep as being too annyoing and a waste of developer
time when trying to figure what is a legitimate locking bug versus
lockdep getting confused.
<Rant>I can't even disable the new Lockdep feature which is throwing
lots of new false positives --- it's just all or nothing.</Rant>
Dave has just said he's already stopped using Lockdep, as a result.
- Ted
--
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>
