On Tue, 1 Jul 2014 13:07:18 +0200 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 06:41:11AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > Right -- in the case of something like atomic_dec_and_lock, we only > > take the spinlock if we think the count might go to zero. So, we might > > miss catching some places that could deadlock if the refcounts don't go > > to zero in the testing we're doing. > > > > might_lock may be what we need, but I don't see any callers of it, > > might_fault() > might_lock_read(¤t->mm->mmap_sem) > > I'm not sure we have others; but this is the one I remember providing > this for. > > > and > > at a quick glance it doesn't appear to be disabled if debug_locks is > > false. > > The whole of lockdep gets killed, and that would include the > lock_acquire/lock_release used to implement these. Ok, good. Let's just drop this patch then and I'll plan to use might_lock instead of this call. Thanks! -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
