* Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 10:31:35AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > if (unlikely(c)) {
> > > > \
> > > > - if (debug_locks_
On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 10:31:35AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > if (unlikely(c)) { \
> > > - if (debug_locks_silent || debug_locks_off())\
> > > + if (!debug_locks_sile
o your $HOME/.muttrc file. ]
->
Subject: [patch] lock debugging: fix DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON() & debug_locks_silent
From: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Matthew Wilcox noticed that the debug_locks_silent use should be
inverted in DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(). This bug was causing spu
On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 01:51:03AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 09:43:59AM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > I wonder why doing debug_locks_off depends here on
> > debug_lock_silent state which is only "esthetical"
> > flag. And debug_locks_off() takes into consideration
>
On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 09:43:59AM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> I wonder why doing debug_locks_off depends here on
> debug_lock_silent state which is only "esthetical"
> flag. And debug_locks_off() takes into consideration
> debug_lock_silent after all. So IMHO:
It's not 'aesthetic' at all. It
On 16-12-2006 09:04, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> Bug-found-by: Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ---
> include/linux/debug_locks.h |2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Index: l
\
>
> Surely that should be:
>
> if (!debug_locks_silent && debug_locks_off())
> WARN_ON(1);
oops, indeed! Fix below.
Ingo
----->
Subject: [patch] lock debugging: fix DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON() & debug_locks_silent
Fr
7 matches
Mail list logo
