On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 10:50:09AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Clearly I'm still missing stuff...
By the way.. do I have to explain more? Lack of explanation?
It would be the best to consider 'all valid acquires', which can occur
deadlock, but it looks impossible without parsing all code in head.
So it would be the safest to rely on 'acquires which actually happened',
even though it might be 'random acquires' among all valid acquires.
This conservative appoach is exactly same as how original lockdep is doing.
Let me explain more if you doubt it.