On 07/11/2015 01:05 AM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
On 2015/07/11 10:27, Waiman Long wrote:
On 07/10/2015 08:32 PM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
On 2015/07/10 23:28, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 03:57:46PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Peter Zijlstra<pet...@infradead.org> wrote:
Do we want to make double unlock non-fatal unconditionally?
No, just don't BUG() out, don't crash the system - generate a warning?
So that would be a yes..
Something like so then? Won't this generate a splat on that locking self
test then? And upset people?
Hmm, yes, this still noisy...
Can't we avoid double-unlock completely? it seems that this warning can
happen randomly, which means pv-spinlock randomly broken, doesn't it?
It shouldn't randomly happen. The message should be printed at the first
instance of double-unlock. If that is not case, there may be some
problem in the code.
Ah, OK. That comes from locking selftest. In that case, do we really
need the warning while selftest, since we know it always fails ?
Anyway, I have an alternative fix that should better capture the problem:
Do we need both Peter's BUG() removing patch and this?
No, you can choose either one. They are just different ways to solve the
same BUG() problem.
Cheers,
Longman
--
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/
