On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 08:37:23AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 03:27:36PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > Hurm, if you're going to directly use that maybe we should pick a better > > name ;-) > > Fine with that. > > > Also, be sure to check the debug_locks variable, if that's cleared the > > result of _lockdep_is_held() isn't reliable -- we stop tracking lock > > state when there's an error. > > I already do. But I'm wondering if we can't simply move the > debug_locks check into lockdep_is_held? It's already used directly > in a few places, and that would also solve the whole naming issue. Reason I didn't do that initially was that I used lock_is_held() for both positive and negative tests (ie. assert a lock is held and a lock is not held). Given that, you cannot pick a right return value when !debug_locks. Not sure we still do that, but I distinctly remember running into that when I did as you suggest now. But that was many years ago. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
