On Mon, 2021-02-15 at 17:04 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 02:12:30PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Mon, 2021-02-15 at 11:44 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > I think something like so will work, but please double check.
> >
> > Yeah, that looks better.
> >
> > > +++ b/include/linux/lockdep.h
> > > @@ -294,11 +294,15 @@ extern void lock_unpin_lock(struct lockdep_map
> > > *lock, struct pin_cookie);
> > >
> > > #define lockdep_depth(tsk) (debug_locks ? (tsk)->lockdep_depth : 0)
> > >
> > > -#define lockdep_assert_held(l) do { \
> > > - WARN_ON(debug_locks && !lockdep_is_held(l)); \
> > > +#define lockdep_assert_held(l) do {
> > > \
> > > + WARN_ON(debug_locks && lockdep_is_held(l) == 0)); \
> > > } while (0)
> >
> > That doesn't really need to change? It's the same.
>
> Correct, but I found it more symmetric vs the not implementation below.
Fair enough. One might argue that you should have an
enum lockdep_lock_state {
LOCK_STATE_NOT_HELD, /* 0 now */
LOCK_STATE_HELD, /* 1 now */
LOCK_STATE_UNKNOWN, /* -1 with your patch but might as well be 2 */
};
:)
johannes
_______________________________________________
ath10k mailing list
ath10k@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k
