On Fri, Mar 01, 2019 at 10:40:52AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Since the removal of FS_RECLAIM annotations, lockdep states contain four
> characters, not six.
>
> Fixes: e5684bbfc3f03480 ("Documentation/locking/lockdep: Update info about
> states")
> Fixes: d92a8cfcb37ecd13 ("locking/lockdep: Rework FS_RECLAIM annotation")
> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+rene...@glider.be>
Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.ibm.com>
Or let me know if you would rather me take this via the -rcu tree, either
way works for me!
Thanx, Paul
> ---
> v2:
> - Fix silly before/after inversion in patch description.
> ---
> Documentation/RCU/lockdep-splat.txt | 6 +++---
> Documentation/locking/lockdep-design.txt | 4 ++--
> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/lockdep-splat.txt
> b/Documentation/RCU/lockdep-splat.txt
> index 238e9f61352f6187..9423b633526d14df 100644
> --- a/Documentation/RCU/lockdep-splat.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/RCU/lockdep-splat.txt
> @@ -24,11 +24,11 @@ other info that might help us debug this:
>
> rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 0
> 3 locks held by scsi_scan_6/1552:
> - #0: (&shost->scan_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8145efca>]
> + #0: (&shost->scan_mutex){+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8145efca>]
> scsi_scan_host_selected+0x5a/0x150
> - #1: (&eq->sysfs_lock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff812a5032>]
> + #1: (&eq->sysfs_lock){+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff812a5032>]
> elevator_exit+0x22/0x60
> - #2: (&(&q->__queue_lock)->rlock){-.-...}, at: [<ffffffff812b6233>]
> + #2: (&(&q->__queue_lock)->rlock){-.-.}, at: [<ffffffff812b6233>]
> cfq_exit_queue+0x43/0x190
>
> stack backtrace:
> diff --git a/Documentation/locking/lockdep-design.txt
> b/Documentation/locking/lockdep-design.txt
> index 49f58a07ee7b19c8..39fae143c9cbf5ff 100644
> --- a/Documentation/locking/lockdep-design.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/locking/lockdep-design.txt
> @@ -45,10 +45,10 @@ When locking rules are violated, these state bits are
> presented in the
> locking error messages, inside curlies. A contrived example:
>
> modprobe/2287 is trying to acquire lock:
> - (&sio_locks[i].lock){-.-...}, at: [<c02867fd>] mutex_lock+0x21/0x24
> + (&sio_locks[i].lock){-.-.}, at: [<c02867fd>] mutex_lock+0x21/0x24
>
> but task is already holding lock:
> - (&sio_locks[i].lock){-.-...}, at: [<c02867fd>] mutex_lock+0x21/0x24
> + (&sio_locks[i].lock){-.-.}, at: [<c02867fd>] mutex_lock+0x21/0x24
>
>
> The bit position indicates STATE, STATE-read, for each of the states listed
> --
> 2.17.1
>
