From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH -rt 1/9] preempt rcu: check for underflow Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 11:22:11 +0200 Message-ID: <20070730092211.GA25640@elte.hu> References: <20070730024534.369897977@mvista.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org To: Daniel Walker Return-path: Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:46480 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1765851AbXG3JWX (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jul 2007 05:22:23 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070730024534.369897977@mvista.com> Sender: linux-rt-users-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-rt-users.vger.kernel.org * Daniel Walker wrote: > + /* > + * If our rcu_read_lock_nesting went negative, likely > + * something is wrong.. > + */ > + WARN_ON(current->rcu_read_lock_nesting < 0); have you actually caught any rcu locking problem this way? Double unlocks should be caught by lockdep already, at a higher level. in any case i've added a slightly different form of this change to the -rt queue that will also check for counter overflows. But i'm not sure we want to litter the code with trivial checks like this, so i'm keeping it separate and if it does not trigger anything real i'll remove it. Ingo