On 01/12, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > The "int check" argument of lock_acquire() and held_lock->check > are misleading and unneeded. This is only used as a boolean, 2 > denotes "true", everything else is "false". And this boolean is > always equal to prove_locking. > > The only exception is __lockdep_no_validate__ which should make > this condition "false" in validate_chain().
And I missed mark_irqflags(), > @@ -3136,7 +3130,7 @@ static int __lock_acquire(struct lockdep_map *lock, > unsigned int subclass, > hlock->holdtime_stamp = lockstat_clock(); > #endif > > - if (check == 2 && !mark_irqflags(curr, hlock)) > + if (prove_locking && !mark_irqflags(curr, hlock)) > return 0; This change is not right, at least it is not equivalent. And I just realized that rcu_lock_acquire() does lock_acquire(check => 1). Probably we can mark rcu_lock_map's as __lockdep_no_validate__. Anything else I missed? Oleg. -- 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/
