On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 10:14:38AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> At the moment, the radix tree actively disables the RCU checking that
> enabling lockdep would give us. It has to, because it has no idea what
> lock protects any individual access to the radix tree. The XArray can
> use the RCU
On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 10:14:38AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> At the moment, the radix tree actively disables the RCU checking that
> enabling lockdep would give us. It has to, because it has no idea what
> lock protects any individual access to the radix tree. The XArray can
> use the RCU
On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 10:27:17AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> So if you are adding complexity to the kernel with the argument,
> "lockdep will save us", I'm with Dave --- it's just not a believable
> argument.
I think that's a gross misrepresentation of what I'm doing.
At the moment, the
On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 10:27:17AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> So if you are adding complexity to the kernel with the argument,
> "lockdep will save us", I'm with Dave --- it's just not a believable
> argument.
I think that's a gross misrepresentation of what I'm doing.
At the moment, the
On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 02:38:03PM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> I think it was a mistake to force these on for everybody; they have a
> much higher false-positive rate than the rest of lockdep, so as you say
> forcing them on leads to fewer people using *any* of lockdep.
>
> The bug you're
On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 02:38:03PM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> I think it was a mistake to force these on for everybody; they have a
> much higher false-positive rate than the rest of lockdep, so as you say
> forcing them on leads to fewer people using *any* of lockdep.
>
> The bug you're
On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 02:38:03PM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 11:06:34AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > The problem is that if it has too many false positives --- and it's
> > gotten *way* worse with the completion callback "feature", people will
> > just stop using
On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 02:38:03PM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 11:06:34AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > The problem is that if it has too many false positives --- and it's
> > gotten *way* worse with the completion callback "feature", people will
> > just stop using
On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 02:38:03PM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> You need to get LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE off. I'd revert patches
> e26f34a407aec9c65bce2bc0c838fabe4f051fc6 and
> b483cf3bc249d7af706390efa63d6671e80d1c09
Oops. I meant to revert 2dcd5adfb7401b762ddbe4b86dcacc2f3de6b97b.
Or you could
On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 02:38:03PM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> You need to get LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE off. I'd revert patches
> e26f34a407aec9c65bce2bc0c838fabe4f051fc6 and
> b483cf3bc249d7af706390efa63d6671e80d1c09
Oops. I meant to revert 2dcd5adfb7401b762ddbe4b86dcacc2f3de6b97b.
Or you could
On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 11:06:34AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> The problem is that if it has too many false positives --- and it's
> gotten *way* worse with the completion callback "feature", people will
> just stop using Lockdep as being too annyoing and a waste of developer
> time when trying
On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 11:06:34AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> The problem is that if it has too many false positives --- and it's
> gotten *way* worse with the completion callback "feature", people will
> just stop using Lockdep as being too annyoing and a waste of developer
> time when trying
12 matches
Mail list logo
