From: Sandy Harris <pashley@storm.ca>
To: Oliver Xymoron <oxymoron@waste.org>
Cc: Daniel Phillips <phillips@arcor.de>,
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@sgi.com>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger@clusterfs.com>,
kernel-janitor-discuss
<kernel-janitor-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: spinlock assertion macros
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 19:52:45 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3D2E1A4D.10705EA5@storm.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Pine.LNX.4.44.0207111131550.15441-100000@waste.org
Oliver Xymoron wrote:
>
> On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
>
> > I was thinking of something as simple as:
> >
> > #define spin_assert_locked(LOCK) BUG_ON(!spin_is_locked(LOCK))
> >
> > but in truth I'd be happy regardless of the internal implementation. A note
> > on names: Linus likes to shout the names of his BUG macros. I've never been
> > one for shouting, but it's not my kernel, and anyway, I'm happy he now likes
> > asserts. I bet he'd like it more spelled like this though:
> >
> > MUST_HOLD(&lock);
>
> I prefer that form too.
Is it worth adding MUST_NOT_HOLD(&lock) in an attempt to catch potential
deadlocks?
Say that if two or more of locks A, B and C are to be taken, then
they must be taken in that order. You might then have code like:
MUST_NOT_HOLD(&lock_B) ;
MUST_NOT_HOLD(&lock_C) ;
spinlock(&lock_A) ;
I think you need a separate asertion for this !MUST_NOT_HOLD(&lock)
has different semantics.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-07-12 0:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 94+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <Pine.LNX.4.44L.0207061306440.8346-100000@imladris.surriel.com>
[not found] ` <3D27390E.5060208@us.ibm.com>
2002-07-07 20:55 ` BKL removal Greg KH
2002-07-07 21:28 ` Oliver Neukum
2002-07-07 21:58 ` Dave Hansen
2002-07-07 22:38 ` Oliver Neukum
2002-07-07 21:35 ` Dave Hansen
2002-07-07 21:55 ` Thunder from the hill
2002-07-07 22:42 ` Dave Hansen
2002-07-07 23:07 ` Thunder from the hill
2002-07-07 23:23 ` Dave Hansen
2002-07-07 23:34 ` Thunder from the hill
2002-07-07 23:42 ` Sean Neakums
2002-07-07 23:31 ` Oliver Neukum
2002-07-07 23:45 ` Dave Hansen
2002-07-08 2:34 ` Matthew Wilcox
2002-07-08 2:52 ` Dave Hansen
2002-07-08 3:06 ` Alexander Viro
2002-07-08 12:33 ` Matthew Wilcox
2002-07-08 14:53 ` Dave Hansen
2002-07-08 12:29 ` Matthew Wilcox
2002-07-08 2:58 ` Alexander Viro
2002-07-08 3:06 ` Dave Hansen
2002-07-08 12:15 ` Matthew Wilcox
2002-07-08 6:34 ` Oliver Neukum
2002-07-07 23:23 ` Oliver Neukum
2002-07-07 23:31 ` Dave Hansen
2002-07-07 23:51 ` Greg KH
2002-07-08 0:07 ` Dave Hansen
2002-07-08 2:12 ` Greg KH
2002-07-09 1:46 ` Rick Lindsley
2002-07-09 4:38 ` Greg KH
2002-07-09 19:31 ` Rick Lindsley
2002-07-09 20:17 ` Greg KH
2002-07-09 20:55 ` Rick Lindsley
2002-07-09 21:00 ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-07-09 21:12 ` Robert Love
2002-07-09 14:19 ` Dave Hansen
2002-07-09 21:29 ` Robert Love
2002-07-09 14:44 ` Dave Hansen
2002-07-09 21:47 ` Robert Love
2002-07-10 1:15 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2002-07-10 3:27 ` Alexander Viro
2002-07-09 20:49 ` Dave Hansen
2002-07-10 5:30 ` Alexander Viro
2002-07-10 10:28 ` Sandy Harris
2002-07-18 0:30 ` David Wagner
2002-07-18 1:03 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-07-09 21:59 ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-07-09 22:21 ` Alan Cox
2002-07-10 13:31 ` jlnance
2002-07-10 14:17 ` Alan Cox
2002-07-15 20:53 ` Alexander Hoogerhuis
2002-07-15 22:07 ` Rik van Riel
2002-07-15 22:25 ` Thunder from the hill
2002-07-09 19:33 ` Rick Lindsley
2002-07-09 20:12 ` Greg KH
2002-07-09 4:49 ` Drew P. Vogel
2002-07-09 5:25 ` Dave Hansen
2002-07-09 5:21 ` Larry McVoy
2002-07-09 7:59 ` Roman Zippel
2002-07-10 10:03 ` Marco Colombo
2002-07-10 14:40 ` Matthew Wilcox
2002-07-10 16:46 ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-07-11 9:57 ` Marco Colombo
2002-07-10 21:28 ` Rick Lindsley
2002-07-10 22:24 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-07-10 23:36 ` spinlock assertion macros Jesse Barnes
2002-07-11 0:54 ` Andreas Dilger
2002-07-11 1:10 ` Jesse Barnes
2002-07-11 5:31 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-07-11 7:19 ` george anzinger
2002-07-11 16:35 ` Oliver Xymoron
2002-07-11 23:52 ` Sandy Harris [this message]
2002-07-12 0:56 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-07-12 3:22 ` Oliver Xymoron
2002-07-11 18:03 ` Jesse Barnes
2002-07-11 19:17 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-07-12 12:07 ` Dave Jones
2002-07-12 12:55 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-07-12 19:24 ` Arnd Bergmann
2002-07-12 17:42 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-07-17 2:22 ` Jesse Barnes
2002-07-17 6:34 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-07-18 23:36 ` [PATCH] spinlock assertion macros for 2.5.26 Jesse Barnes
2002-07-17 11:09 ` spinlock assertion macros Arnd Bergmann
2002-07-12 20:41 ` Oliver Xymoron
2002-07-13 3:21 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-07-12 17:49 ` Robert Love
2002-07-12 17:58 ` Dave Jones
2002-07-11 10:51 ` Arnd Bergmann
2002-07-07 22:24 ` BKL removal Greg KH
2002-07-08 0:56 ` Bernd Eckenfels
2002-07-10 0:30 ` Pavel Machek
[not found] <0C01A29FBAE24448A792F5C68F5EA47D2B0FDD@nasdaq.ms.ensim.com>
2002-07-12 1:36 ` spinlock assertion macros pmenage
2002-07-12 4:38 ` Jesse Barnes
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3D2E1A4D.10705EA5@storm.ca \
--to=pashley@storm.ca \
--cc=adilger@clusterfs.com \
--cc=jbarnes@sgi.com \
--cc=kernel-janitor-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oxymoron@waste.org \
--cc=phillips@arcor.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.