Re: [patch 1/3] rtmutex: Add missing deadlock check

[Steven Rostedt]

On Tue, 13 May 2014 16:27:11 -0700
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 06:44:30PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 May 2014 15:00:09 -0700
> > "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > > Good points -- I was indeed thinking about stress testing instead of
> > > algorithmic testing.
> > 
> > But doesn't lockdep use algorithmic tests too?
> 
> I suppose you could argue that there is no such thing as non-algorithmic
> testing, given that all test code uses an algorithm of some sort.  Perhaps
> with the exception of letting your pet walk across the keyboard.  ;-)
> 
> Perhaps I should have instead said that I was thinking about random
> testing instead of formal testing?

Actually it still applies, but I was mistaken, it's not lockdep itself,
it's the LOCKING_API_SELFTESTS. They are a form of formal testing as
suppose to random testing.

See lib/locking-selftest.c.

That looks more like something we can do for the rtmutex code, or even
add to it.

-- Steve
--
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/