Re: [PATCH] xfs: fix spurious spin_is_locked() assert failures on non-smp kernels

[Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>]

On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 04:21:40AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 06:56:57AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > The 0-day kernel test robot reports assertion failures on
> > !CONFIG_SMP kernels due to failed spin_is_locked() checks. As it
> > turns out, spin_is_locked() is hardcoded to return zero on
> > !CONFIG_SMP kernels and so this function cannot be relied on to
> > verify spinlock state in this configuration.
> > 
> > To avoid this problem, update the associated asserts to fail only
> > when CONFIG_SMP is enabled in the kernel. Note that this is not
> > necessary for one assert that expects a zero return from
> > spin_is_locked(). Update this assert anyways for consistency and
> > future proofing.
> 
> Just switch to lockdep_assert_held instead of this mess..

Seems reasonable, I wasn't aware of that. What about the
!spin_is_locked() case? Do you want to drop it?

Brian

> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html