* Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 10:28:02PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 07:11:19 +0100 Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > Here is some joke:
> >
> > [PATCH] lockdep: lockdep_depth vs. debug_locks
> >
> > lockdep really shouldn't be used when debug_locks == 0!
> >
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
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 08:06:44AM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
...
> This should definitely solve this problem - as it was said
> a few times before lockdep stops registering locks after
> a bug, so even the lock which caused the warning isn't
> reported. Here lockdep found a bug in a workqueue
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 10:28:02PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
...
> I assume that some codepath is incrementing ->lockdep_depth even when
> debug_locks==0. Isn't that wrong of it?
>
lockdep simply stops to update lockdep_depth just after (during)
a bug or a WARN.
Jarek P.
-
To unsubscribe
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 10:28:02PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 07:11:19 +0100 Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > Here is some joke:
> >
> > [PATCH] lockdep: lockdep_depth vs. debug_locks
> >
> > lockdep really shouldn't be used when debug_locks == 0!
> >
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 10:28:02PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 07:11:19 +0100 Jarek Poplawski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here is some joke:
[PATCH] lockdep: lockdep_depth vs. debug_locks
lockdep really shouldn't be used when debug_locks == 0!
This isn't a
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 10:28:02PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
...
I assume that some codepath is incrementing -lockdep_depth even when
debug_locks==0. Isn't that wrong of it?
lockdep simply stops to update lockdep_depth just after (during)
a bug or a WARN.
Jarek P.
-
To unsubscribe from
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 08:06:44AM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
...
This should definitely solve this problem - as it was said
a few times before lockdep stops registering locks after
a bug, so even the lock which caused the warning isn't
reported. Here lockdep found a bug in a workqueue
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
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 10:28:02PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 07:11:19 +0100 Jarek Poplawski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here is some joke:
[PATCH] lockdep: lockdep_depth vs. debug_locks
lockdep really shouldn't be used when debug_locks == 0!
This isn't a
* Peter Zijlstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 07:11:19 +0100 Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Here is some joke:
>
> [PATCH] lockdep: lockdep_depth vs. debug_locks
>
> lockdep really shouldn't be used when debug_locks == 0!
>
This isn't a very good changelog.
>
> Reported-by: Folkert van Heusden
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 07:11:19 +0100 Jarek Poplawski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here is some joke:
[PATCH] lockdep: lockdep_depth vs. debug_locks
lockdep really shouldn't be used when debug_locks == 0!
This isn't a very good changelog.
Reported-by: Folkert van Heusden [EMAIL
14 matches
Mail list logo
