[PATCH tip/core/rcu 07/19] lockdep: Explicitly flag likely false-positive report

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>]

The reason that lockdep_rcu_suspicious() prints the value of debug_locks
is because a value of zero indicates a likely false positive.  This can
work, but is a bit obtuse.  This commit therefore explicitly calls out
the possibility of a false positive.

Reviewed-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
---
 kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 6 ++++--
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
index 48d736aa03b2..d6c3c987009d 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
@@ -6393,6 +6393,7 @@ asmlinkage __visible void lockdep_sys_exit(void)
 void lockdep_rcu_suspicious(const char *file, const int line, const char *s)
 {
 	struct task_struct *curr = current;
+	int dl = READ_ONCE(debug_locks);
 
 	/* Note: the following can be executed concurrently, so be careful. */
 	pr_warn("\n");
@@ -6402,11 +6403,12 @@ void lockdep_rcu_suspicious(const char *file, const int line, const char *s)
 	pr_warn("-----------------------------\n");
 	pr_warn("%s:%d %s!\n", file, line, s);
 	pr_warn("\nother info that might help us debug this:\n\n");
-	pr_warn("\n%srcu_scheduler_active = %d, debug_locks = %d\n",
+	pr_warn("\n%srcu_scheduler_active = %d, debug_locks = %d\n%s",
 	       !rcu_lockdep_current_cpu_online()
 			? "RCU used illegally from offline CPU!\n"
 			: "",
-	       rcu_scheduler_active, debug_locks);
+	       rcu_scheduler_active, dl,
+	       dl ? "" : "Possible false positive due to lockdep disabling via debug_locks = 0\n");
 
 	/*
 	 * If a CPU is in the RCU-free window in idle (ie: in the section
-- 
2.31.1.189.g2e36527f23