* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 10:50:01AM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
> > So a lockdep-only assert is unlikely to draw attention to existing bugs,
> > especially in established drivers.
>
> By the same logic lockdep will not find locking errors in established
> drivers.
Indeed, this patch is ill-advised in several ways:
- it extends an API variant that we want to phase
- emits a warning even if say lockdep has already emitted a
warning and locking state is not guaranteed to be consistent.
- makes the kernel more expensive once fully debugged, in that
non-fatal checks are unconditional.
Also please submit locking related patches as standalone series
to the locking subsystem, not embedded in an unrelated series.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-serial" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
