Re: irq lock inversion

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 08 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Fri, Nov 06 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > Read the lockdep message please, consider all the backtraces it prints, 
> > > > it says something different.
> > > 
> > > In all honesty, reading and parsing lockdep messages requires a 
> > > special state of mind. IOW, readability is not its high point.
> > 
> > We frequently do patches to improve the messages but there's a hard 
> > limit: generally the messages mirror the complexity of the underlying 
> > locking scenario.
> > 
> > Unfortunately lockdep cannot pretend something is simple when it is not. 
> > There are two ways out of that: either to simplify the underlying 
> > locking rules, or to understand them.
> 
> I think the primary problem is that it tries to condense too much 
> information, instead of just spelling it out. That may be obvious to a 
> person intimately familiar with lockdep, but not to others. Things 
> like the STATE line, for instance. It would read a lot easier if these 
> things were just spelled out.
> 
> I know this message isn't really productive, just tossing it out 
> there. I'll try to to back it up with a patch the next time it annoys 
> me :-)

Well, previously lockdep spewed out a lot of info, which we condensed 
down because people complained ;-)

	Ingo