Re: [PATCH] locking/lockdep: Make lockdep_register_key() ignore 'debug_locks'

* Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Fri, 2019-04-12 at 07:47 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > So why don't we add a debug_locks test to lockdep_unregister_key() > > instead? The general principle to bring lockdep to a screeching halt when > > bugs are detected, ASAP. > > Hi Ingo, > > Since this

Re: [PATCH] locking/lockdep: Make lockdep_register_key() ignore 'debug_locks'

On Fri, 2019-04-12 at 07:47 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > So why don't we add a debug_locks test to lockdep_unregister_key() > instead? The general principle to bring lockdep to a screeching halt when > bugs are detected, ASAP. Hi Ingo, Since this issue was introduced by patch "locking/lockdep:

Re: [PATCH] locking/lockdep: Make lockdep_register_key() ignore 'debug_locks'

* Bart Van Assche wrote: > If lockdep_register_key() and lockdep_unregister_key() are called with > debug_locks == false then the following warning is reported: > > WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 15145 at kernel/locking/lockdep.c:4920 > lockdep_unregister_key+0x1ad/0x240 > > That warning is reported

[PATCH] locking/lockdep: Make lockdep_register_key() ignore 'debug_locks'

If lockdep_register_key() and lockdep_unregister_key() are called with debug_locks == false then the following warning is reported: WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 15145 at kernel/locking/lockdep.c:4920 lockdep_unregister_key+0x1ad/0x240 That warning is reported because lockdep_unregister_key() ignores