On 01/12, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: > > > > But what I really can't understans is what "check == 0" means? It > > > seems that in fact it can be 1 or 2? Or, iow, "check == 0" is > > > actually equivalent to "check == 1" ? > > > > Hmm indeed, the comment in lockdep.h says 0 means no checks at all, > > but the code doesn't actually appear to work like that. I'm not sure > > it ever did or not, I'd have to go dig through history. > > > > That said, given the current state it certainly looks like we can > > remove the check argument. > > > > Ingo? > > Agreed.
OK, could you and Peter review the patch? If it passes the review I'll send another one which changes the callers of lock_acquire(). And trace_lock_acquire() should be trivially updated too. But could someone please explain me what should lockdep_no_validate actually do? 1704f47b5 "lockdep: Add novalidate class for dev->mutex conversion" doesn't tell which kind of warnings it tries to avoid, and it looks buggy (see another email from me). Oleg. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
