* Andy Lutomirski <l...@kernel.org> wrote:
> This will let us sprinkle sanity checks around the kernel without
> making too much of a mess.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <l...@kernel.org>
> ---
> include/linux/context_tracking.h | 8 ++++++++
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/context_tracking.h
> b/include/linux/context_tracking.h
> index 2821838256b4..0fbea4b152e1 100644
> --- a/include/linux/context_tracking.h
> +++ b/include/linux/context_tracking.h
> @@ -57,6 +57,13 @@ static inline void context_tracking_task_switch(struct
> task_struct *prev,
> if (context_tracking_is_enabled())
> __context_tracking_task_switch(prev, next);
> }
> +
> +static inline void context_tracking_assert_state(enum ctx_state state)
> +{
> + rcu_lockdep_assert(!context_tracking_is_enabled() ||
> + this_cpu_read(context_tracking.state) == state,
> + "context tracking state was wrong");
> +}
Please don't introduce assert() style debug check interfaces!
(And RCU should be fixed too I suspect.)
They are absolutely horrible on the brain when mixed with WARN_ON() interfaces,
which are the dominant runtime check interface in the kernel.
Instead make it something like:
#define ct_state() (this_cpu_read(context_tracking.state))
#define CT_WARN_ON(cond) \
WARN_ON(context_tracking_is_enabled() && (cond))
and then the debug checks can be written as:
CT_WARN_ON(ct_state() != CONTEXT_KERNEL);
This is IMHO _far_ more readable than:
context_tracking_assert_state(CONTEXT_KERNEL);
ok?
(Assuming people will accept 'ct/CT' as an abbreviation for context tracking.)
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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/
