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 PROTECTED]> > Inspired-by: Oleg Nesterov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > --- > > diff -Nurp 2.6.21-rc4-git4-/include/linux/lockdep.h > 2.6.21-rc4-git4/include/linux/lockdep.h > --- 2.6.21-rc4-git4-/include/linux/lockdep.h 2007-03-20 20:24:17.000000000 > +0100 > +++ 2.6.21-rc4-git4/include/linux/lockdep.h 2007-03-21 22:32:41.000000000 > +0100 > @@ -245,7 +245,7 @@ extern void lock_release(struct lockdep_ > > # define INIT_LOCKDEP .lockdep_recursion = 0, > > -#define lockdep_depth(tsk) ((tsk)->lockdep_depth) > +#define lockdep_depth(tsk) (debug_locks ? (tsk)->lockdep_depth : 0) > > #else /* !LOCKDEP */ > What problem does this solve, and how does it solve it? I assume that some codepath is incrementing ->lockdep_depth even when debug_locks==0. Isn't that wrong of it? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
