On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 06:21:07PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Aug 2002, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > macro worked before? I could just remove all those checks in the scsi
> > code I guess.
>
> That would be a better option.
Ok.
> The MUST_NOT_HOLD basically means the kernel will OOPS the
> moment the lock is contended.
I think those macros were intended to enforce lock ordering in the
scsi layer (though I'm not sure). At any rate, there are much better
ways to enforce proper lock ordering, and the scsi layer could be
updated when/if we get one.
> If you want to detect lock recursion on the same CPU, I'd
> suggest the following:
> ...
Of course, that's what the lockmetering code does, IIRC, but I think
that's a feature for a seperate patch.
Thanks,
Jesse
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 07 2002 - 22:00:38 EST