From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 10:57:06 +0900 From: Byungchul Park To: Bart Van Assche Cc: "mingo@kernel.org" , "peterz@infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "amir73il@gmail.com" , "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" , "hch@infradead.org" , "linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org" , "tglx@linutronix.de" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "oleg@redhat.com" , "darrick.wong@oracle.com" , "johannes.berg@intel.com" , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , "idryomov@gmail.com" , "tj@kernel.org" , "kernel-team@lge.com" , "david@fromorbit.com" Subject: Re: Fix false positive by LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE Message-ID: <20171019015705.GD32368@X58A-UD3R> References: <1508319532-24655-1-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com> <1508336995.2923.2.camel@wdc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1508336995.2923.2.camel@wdc.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 02:29:56PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Wed, 2017-10-18 at 18:38 +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > > Several false positives were reported, so I tried to fix them. > > > > It would be appreciated if you tell me if it works as expected, or let > > me know your opinion. > > What I have been wondering about is whether the crosslock checking makes > sense from a conceptual point of view. I tried to find documentation for the > crosslock checking in Documentation/locking/lockdep-design.txt but > couldn't find a description of the crosslock checking. Shouldn't it be > documented somewhere what the crosslock checks do and what the theory is > behind these checks? Documentation/locking/crossrelease.txt would be helpful. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org