[RFC][PATCH 2/3] locking/selftest: Remove the bad unlock ordering test

From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Wed May 31 2017 - 11:21:56 EST


There is no such thing as a bad unlock order.

Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
lib/locking-selftest.c | 29 -----------------------------
1 file changed, 29 deletions(-)

--- a/lib/locking-selftest.c
+++ b/lib/locking-selftest.c
@@ -516,34 +516,6 @@ GENERATE_TESTCASE(double_unlock_rsem)
#undef E

/*
- * Bad unlock ordering:
- */
-#define E() \
- \
- LOCK(A); \
- LOCK(B); \
- UNLOCK(A); /* fail */ \
- UNLOCK(B);
-
-/*
- * 6 testcases:
- */
-#include "locking-selftest-spin.h"
-GENERATE_TESTCASE(bad_unlock_order_spin)
-#include "locking-selftest-wlock.h"
-GENERATE_TESTCASE(bad_unlock_order_wlock)
-#include "locking-selftest-rlock.h"
-GENERATE_TESTCASE(bad_unlock_order_rlock)
-#include "locking-selftest-mutex.h"
-GENERATE_TESTCASE(bad_unlock_order_mutex)
-#include "locking-selftest-wsem.h"
-GENERATE_TESTCASE(bad_unlock_order_wsem)
-#include "locking-selftest-rsem.h"
-GENERATE_TESTCASE(bad_unlock_order_rsem)
-
-#undef E
-
-/*
* initializing a held lock:
*/
#define E() \
@@ -1825,7 +1797,6 @@ void locking_selftest(void)
DO_TESTCASE_6R("A-B-C-D-B-C-D-A deadlock", ABCDBCDA);
DO_TESTCASE_6("double unlock", double_unlock);
DO_TESTCASE_6("initialize held", init_held);
- DO_TESTCASE_6_SUCCESS("bad unlock order", bad_unlock_order);

printk(" --------------------------------------------------------------------------\n");
print_testname("recursive read-lock");