There is only one caller of check_prev_add() which hands in a zeroed struct
stack trace and a function pointer to save_stack(). Inside check_prev_add()
the stack_trace struct is checked for being empty, which is always
true. Based on that one code path stores a stack trace which is unused. The
comment there does not make sense either. It's all leftovers from
historical lockdep code (cross release).

Move the variable into check_prev_add() itself and cleanup the nonsensical
checks and the pointless stack trace recording.

Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de>
---
 kernel/locking/lockdep.c |   30 ++++++++----------------------
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)

--- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
@@ -2158,10 +2158,10 @@ check_deadlock(struct task_struct *curr,
  */
 static int
 check_prev_add(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *prev,
-              struct held_lock *next, int distance, struct stack_trace *trace,
-              int (*save)(struct stack_trace *trace))
+              struct held_lock *next, int distance)
 {
        struct lock_list *uninitialized_var(target_entry);
+       struct stack_trace trace;
        struct lock_list *entry;
        struct lock_list this;
        int ret;
@@ -2196,17 +2196,8 @@ check_prev_add(struct task_struct *curr,
        this.class = hlock_class(next);
        this.parent = NULL;
        ret = check_noncircular(&this, hlock_class(prev), &target_entry);
-       if (unlikely(!ret)) {
-               if (!trace->entries) {
-                       /*
-                        * If @save fails here, the printing might trigger
-                        * a WARN but because of the !nr_entries it should
-                        * not do bad things.
-                        */
-                       save(trace);
-               }
+       if (unlikely(!ret))
                return print_circular_bug(&this, target_entry, next, prev);
-       }
        else if (unlikely(ret < 0))
                return print_bfs_bug(ret);
 
@@ -2253,7 +2244,7 @@ check_prev_add(struct task_struct *curr,
                return print_bfs_bug(ret);
 
 
-       if (!trace->entries && !save(trace))
+       if (!save_trace(&trace))
                return 0;
 
        /*
@@ -2262,14 +2253,14 @@ check_prev_add(struct task_struct *curr,
         */
        ret = add_lock_to_list(hlock_class(next), hlock_class(prev),
                               &hlock_class(prev)->locks_after,
-                              next->acquire_ip, distance, trace);
+                              next->acquire_ip, distance, &trace);
 
        if (!ret)
                return 0;
 
        ret = add_lock_to_list(hlock_class(prev), hlock_class(next),
                               &hlock_class(next)->locks_before,
-                              next->acquire_ip, distance, trace);
+                              next->acquire_ip, distance, &trace);
        if (!ret)
                return 0;
 
@@ -2287,12 +2278,6 @@ check_prevs_add(struct task_struct *curr
 {
        int depth = curr->lockdep_depth;
        struct held_lock *hlock;
-       struct stack_trace trace = {
-               .nr_entries = 0,
-               .max_entries = 0,
-               .entries = NULL,
-               .skip = 0,
-       };
 
        /*
         * Debugging checks.
@@ -2318,7 +2303,8 @@ check_prevs_add(struct task_struct *curr
                 * added:
                 */
                if (hlock->read != 2 && hlock->check) {
-                       int ret = check_prev_add(curr, hlock, next, distance, 
&trace, save_trace);
+                       int ret = check_prev_add(curr, hlock, next, distance);
+
                        if (!ret)
                                return 0;
 


_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu

Reply via email to