Re: [PATCH 13/26] locking: Add non-fatal spin lock assert

[Ingo Molnar]

* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 10:50:01AM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
> > So a lockdep-only assert is unlikely to draw attention to existing bugs,
> > especially in established drivers.
> 
> By the same logic lockdep will not find locking errors in established
> drivers.

Indeed, this patch is ill-advised in several ways:

  - it extends an API variant that we want to phase

  - emits a warning even if say lockdep has already emitted a
    warning and locking state is not guaranteed to be consistent. 

  - makes the kernel more expensive once fully debugged, in that
    non-fatal checks are unconditional.

Also please submit locking related patches as standalone series 
to the locking subsystem, not embedded in an unrelated series.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/