On 07/11/2014 11:59 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >>> I agree with you that "The call trace is very clear on it that its not", but >>> > > when you have 500 call traces you really want something better than >>> > > going >>> > > through it one call trace at a time. >> > >> > Points well made, and I strongly agree with Vlastimil and Sasha. >> > There is a world of difference between a lock wanted and a lock held, >> > and for the display of locks "held" to conceal that difference is >> > unhelpful. >> > It just needs one greppable word to distinguish the cases. > So for the actual locking scenario it doesn't make a difference one way > or another. These threads all can/could/will acquire the lock > (eventually), so all their locking chains should be considered.
I think that the difference here is that we're not actually debugging a locking issue, we're merely using lockdep to help with figuring out a non-locking related bug and finding it difficult because lockdep's list of "held locks" is really a lie :) Thanks, Sasha -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
