On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 7:19 AM, Andriy Gapon <a...@freebsd.org> wrote: > on 16/11/2012 01:38 Attilio Rao said the following: >> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:51 PM, Andriy Gapon <a...@freebsd.org> wrote: >>> on 15/11/2012 22:00 Adrian Chadd said the following: >>>> But I think my change is invaluable for development, where you want to >>>> improve and debug the locking and lock interactions of a subsystem. >>> >>> My practical experience was that if you mess up one lock in one place, then >>> it >>> is a total mess further on. but apparently you've got a different practical >>> experience :) >>> What would indeed be invaluable to _me_ - if the LOR messages also produced >>> the >>> stack(s) where a supposedly correct lock order was learned. >> >> Please note that the "supposedly correct lock order", as for the >> definition that it is correct, can be used in several different >> stacks. I don't see the point of saving it somewhere. >> The only helpful case would be if the "wrong order" is catched first. >> If this is really the case, I suggest you to force the order you >> expect in the static table so that the first time the wrong order >> happens it yells. > > Exactly my point - if I am a user of some code, not its developer, and I don't > know which one is the correct order I would have had the complete information > from the very start instead of having to jump through the hoops.
I don't agree -- such informations are only useful to developers and also what should we do, store all the valid stacktraces? I don't understand what are you expecting here honestly. Attilio -- Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
