On Thursday 08 August 2002 19:23, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 07:19:21PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > Looks good to me. Would be even better if you removed MUST_NOT_HOLD ;)
>
> Ok, here's yet another version. I've removed the conversion of the
> scsi layer's ASSERT_LOCK macros as well as the silly version of
> MUST_NOT_HOLD. Other things people seem interested in:
> o sleeping function assertions
> o lock ordering enforcement
> o lock recursion detection
> o more assertion checks in other parts of the kernel
>
> Should any of the above be included in this patch?
You would just have to break the patch up again when you submit it. You
might want create a patch that demonstrates its usage, by adding some
asserts to core code and removing comments where the assert makes them
redundant.
> If so, I can try
> to hack one or more of them together, otherwise maybe this is ok to go
> in?
It's looking good.
-- Daniel - 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 : Thu Aug 15 2002 - 22:00:18 EST