This sounds the same as what ended up getting reverted in https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/3/4/221 I can add the WARN_ON_ONCE to all my new calls, and leave them out of existing calls, but that seems a little odd, and will be redundant if the lockdep call in try_to_freeze goes back in in 3.11. Do you still want it in the new apis?
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Tejun Heo <t...@kernel.org> wrote: > On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 04:55:05PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: >> So, the freezable interface can't be something that people can use >> casually. It is something which should be carefully and strategically >> deployed where we *know* that lock dependency risks don't exist or at >> least are acceptable. I'm a bit weary that this patch is expanding >> the interface a lot that they now look like the equivalents of normal >> schedule calls. Not exactly sure what to do here but can we please at >> least have RED BOLD BLINKING comments which scream to people not to >> use these unless they know what they're doing? > > Maybe we should trigger WARN_ON_ONCE() if lockdep_depth() > 0 by > default and have ugly variants which can be used if the caller is sure > that it's okay possibly with list of locks which are held? > > -- > tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
