On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 10:38:58PM -0700, Lance Roy wrote: > lockdep_assert_held() is better suited to checking locking requirements, > since it won't get confused when someone else holds the lock. This is > also a step towards possibly removing spin_is_locked(). > > Signed-off-by: Lance Roy <[email protected]> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> > Cc: Will Deacon <[email protected]> > --- > kernel/locking/mutex-debug.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex-debug.c b/kernel/locking/mutex-debug.c > index 9aa713629387..771d4ca96dda 100644 > --- a/kernel/locking/mutex-debug.c > +++ b/kernel/locking/mutex-debug.c > @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ void debug_mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, struct > mutex_waiter *waiter) > > void debug_mutex_wake_waiter(struct mutex *lock, struct mutex_waiter *waiter) > { > - SMP_DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(!spin_is_locked(&lock->wait_lock)); > + lockdep_assert_held(&lock->wait_lock); > DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(list_empty(&lock->wait_list)); > DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(waiter->magic != waiter); > DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(list_empty(&waiter->list)); > @@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ void debug_mutex_free_waiter(struct mutex_waiter *waiter) > void debug_mutex_add_waiter(struct mutex *lock, struct mutex_waiter *waiter, > struct task_struct *task) > { > - SMP_DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(!spin_is_locked(&lock->wait_lock)); > + lockdep_assert_held(&lock->wait_lock);
I think it's a good idea to replace debug usage of spin_is_locked() with calls to lockdep, but I wonder whether that means that DEBUG_MUTEXES should select LOCKDEP so that we don't lose coverage? What do you think? Will
