On Sun, 2011-06-05 at 22:15 +0200, Arne Jansen wrote: > > Can lockdep just get confused by the lockdep_off/on calls in printk > while scheduling is allowed? There aren't many users of lockdep_off(). Yes!, in that case lock_is_held() returns false, triggering the warning. I guess there's an argument to be made in favour of the below.. --- kernel/lockdep.c | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/lockdep.c b/kernel/lockdep.c index 53a6895..e4129cf 100644 --- a/kernel/lockdep.c +++ b/kernel/lockdep.c @@ -3242,7 +3242,7 @@ int lock_is_held(struct lockdep_map *lock) int ret = 0; if (unlikely(current->lockdep_recursion)) - return ret; + return 1; /* avoid false negative lockdep_assert_held */ raw_local_irq_save(flags); check_flags(flags); -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tip-commits" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|