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

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 07:53:36PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 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.

Ah, got it!  That could work, though I would be tempted to try
automatically generating the C code/tables/whatever from some behavioral
specification.  Of course, there is always the speculation about how I
might feel about that approach after giving into such temptation...  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul

--
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/