On Thu, 2007-03-22 at 07:11 +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > Here is some joke: > > [PATCH] lockdep: lockdep_depth vs. debug_locks > > lockdep really shouldn't be used when debug_locks == 0!
This happens then lockdep reports a fatal error, at which point it will stop tracking locks and leave whatever state was there. > Reported-by: Folkert van Heusden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Inspired-by: Oleg Nesterov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> This looks sane, thanks for figuring this out. Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > --- > > diff -Nurp 2.6.21-rc4-git4-/include/linux/lockdep.h > 2.6.21-rc4-git4/include/linux/lockdep.h > --- 2.6.21-rc4-git4-/include/linux/lockdep.h 2007-03-20 20:24:17.000000000 > +0100 > +++ 2.6.21-rc4-git4/include/linux/lockdep.h 2007-03-21 22:32:41.000000000 > +0100 > @@ -245,7 +245,7 @@ extern void lock_release(struct lockdep_ > > # define INIT_LOCKDEP .lockdep_recursion = 0, > > -#define lockdep_depth(tsk) ((tsk)->lockdep_depth) > +#define lockdep_depth(tsk) (debug_locks ? (tsk)->lockdep_depth : 0) > > #else /* !LOCKDEP */ > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
