On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 06:06:48AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > Unfortunately for you, I don't find arguments along the lines of
> > "lockdep will save us" at all convincing. lockdep already throws
> > too many false positives to be useful as a tool that reliably and
> > accurately points out rare, exciting, complex, intricate locking
> > problems.
>
> But it does reliably and accurately point out "dude, you forgot to take
> the lock". It's caught a number of real problems in my own testing that
> you never got to see.
The problem is that if it has too many false positives --- and it's
gotten *way* worse with the completion callback "feature", people will
just stop using Lockdep as being too annyoing and a waste of developer
time when trying to figure what is a legitimate locking bug versus
lockdep getting confused.
<Rant>I can't even disable the new Lockdep feature which is throwing
lots of new false positives --- it's just all or nothing.</Rant>
Dave has just said he's already stopped using Lockdep, as a result.
- Ted
--
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
