On Mon, 2021-02-15 at 11:44 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> I think something like so will work, but please double check.
Yeah, that looks better.
> +++ b/include/linux/lockdep.h
> @@ -294,11 +294,15 @@ extern void lock_unpin_lock(struct lockdep_map *lock, struct pin_cookie);
>
> #define lockdep_depth(tsk) (debug_locks ? (tsk)->lockdep_depth : 0)
>
> -#define lockdep_assert_held(l) do { \
> - WARN_ON(debug_locks && !lockdep_is_held(l)); \
> +#define lockdep_assert_held(l) do { \
> + WARN_ON(debug_locks && lockdep_is_held(l) == 0)); \
> } while (0)
That doesn't really need to change? It's the same.
> -#define lockdep_assert_held_write(l) do { \
> +#define lockdep_assert_not_held(l) do { \
> + WARN_ON(debug_locks && lockdep_is_held(l) == 1)); \
> + } while (0)
> +
> +#define lockdep_assert_held_write(l) do { \
> WARN_ON(debug_locks && !lockdep_is_held_type(l, 0)); \
> } while (0)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> index c1418b47f625..983ba206f7b2 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.
> +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> @@ -5467,7 +5467,7 @@ noinstr int lock_is_held_type(const struct lockdep_map *lock, int read)
> int ret = 0;
>
> if (unlikely(!lockdep_enabled()))
> - return 1; /* avoid false negative lockdep_assert_held() */
> + return -1; /* avoid false negative lockdep_assert_held() */
Maybe add lockdep_assert_not_held() to the comment, to explain the -1
(vs non-zero)?
johannes
