Re: [PATCH 1/8] lockdep: fix recursive read lock validation

Bart Van Assche
2008-04-29T16:29:18Z

On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 6:15 PM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote:
>
> > Or: whether or not to allow a sequence like "rlock(a); rlock(b);
> > runlock(b); runlock(a); rlock(b); rlock(a);" is something we can
> > choose. We do not have to forbid this sequence -- we can choose
> > whether or not we allow this sequence.
>
> I'm utterly confused now; I never argued that it would get deadlocks;
> and I said I choose to not allow it from a lockdep pov. What else do you
> want?

So we both agree that the statement in the original e-mail (by Gautham
R Shenoy) is wrong ? The original e-mail stated that obtaining reader
locks in an inconsistent order is wrong.

Bart.