On 2/15/21 9:10 AM, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Mon, 2021-02-15 at 17:04 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 02:12:30PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
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.
Correct, but I found it more symmetric vs the not implementation below.
Fair enough. One might argue that you should have an
enum lockdep_lock_state {
LOCK_STATE_NOT_HELD, /* 0 now */
LOCK_STATE_HELD, /* 1 now */
LOCK_STATE_UNKNOWN, /* -1 with your patch but might as well be 2 */
};
:)
Thank you both. Picking this back up. Will send v2 incorporating
your comments and suggestions.
thanks,
-- Shuah
