Re: [PATCH] Documentation/locking/lockdep: Drop last two chars of sample states

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 11:57:31AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Since the removal of FS_RECLAIM annotations, lockdep states contain six
> characters, not four.

Does the above want to instead say "four characters, not six"?

							Thanx, Paul

> Fixes: e5684bbfc3f03480 ("Documentation/locking/lockdep: Update info about states")
> Fixes: d92a8cfcb37ecd13 ("locking/lockdep: Rework FS_RECLAIM annotation")
> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  Documentation/RCU/lockdep-splat.txt      | 6 +++---
>  Documentation/locking/lockdep-design.txt | 4 ++--
>  2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/lockdep-splat.txt b/Documentation/RCU/lockdep-splat.txt
> index 238e9f61352f6187..9423b633526d14df 100644
> --- a/Documentation/RCU/lockdep-splat.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/RCU/lockdep-splat.txt
> @@ -24,11 +24,11 @@ other info that might help us debug this:
>  
>  rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 0
>  3 locks held by scsi_scan_6/1552:
> - #0:  (&shost->scan_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8145efca>]
> + #0:  (&shost->scan_mutex){+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8145efca>]
>  scsi_scan_host_selected+0x5a/0x150
> - #1:  (&eq->sysfs_lock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff812a5032>]
> + #1:  (&eq->sysfs_lock){+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff812a5032>]
>  elevator_exit+0x22/0x60
> - #2:  (&(&q->__queue_lock)->rlock){-.-...}, at: [<ffffffff812b6233>]
> + #2:  (&(&q->__queue_lock)->rlock){-.-.}, at: [<ffffffff812b6233>]
>  cfq_exit_queue+0x43/0x190
>  
>  stack backtrace:
> diff --git a/Documentation/locking/lockdep-design.txt b/Documentation/locking/lockdep-design.txt
> index 49f58a07ee7b19c8..39fae143c9cbf5ff 100644
> --- a/Documentation/locking/lockdep-design.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/locking/lockdep-design.txt
> @@ -45,10 +45,10 @@ When locking rules are violated, these state bits are presented in the
>  locking error messages, inside curlies. A contrived example:
>  
>     modprobe/2287 is trying to acquire lock:
> -    (&sio_locks[i].lock){-.-...}, at: [<c02867fd>] mutex_lock+0x21/0x24
> +    (&sio_locks[i].lock){-.-.}, at: [<c02867fd>] mutex_lock+0x21/0x24
>  
>     but task is already holding lock:
> -    (&sio_locks[i].lock){-.-...}, at: [<c02867fd>] mutex_lock+0x21/0x24
> +    (&sio_locks[i].lock){-.-.}, at: [<c02867fd>] mutex_lock+0x21/0x24
>  
>  
>  The bit position indicates STATE, STATE-read, for each of the states listed
> -- 
> 2.17.1
>