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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox