On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 04:21:40AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 06:56:57AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > > The 0-day kernel test robot reports assertion failures on > > !CONFIG_SMP kernels due to failed spin_is_locked() checks. As it > > turns out, spin_is_locked() is hardcoded to return zero on > > !CONFIG_SMP kernels and so this function cannot be relied on to > > verify spinlock state in this configuration. > > > > To avoid this problem, update the associated asserts to fail only > > when CONFIG_SMP is enabled in the kernel. Note that this is not > > necessary for one assert that expects a zero return from > > spin_is_locked(). Update this assert anyways for consistency and > > future proofing. > > Just switch to lockdep_assert_held instead of this mess.. Seems reasonable, I wasn't aware of that. What about the !spin_is_locked() case? Do you want to drop it? Brian > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
