Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   Yuyang Du <duyuyang@gmail.com>
To:     peterz@infradead.org, will.deacon@arm.com, mingo@kernel.org
Cc:     bvanassche@acm.org, ming.lei@redhat.com, frederic@kernel.org,
        tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        longman@redhat.com, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        boqun.feng@gmail.com, Yuyang Du <duyuyang@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH v4 01/30] locking/lockdep: Rename deadlock check functions
Date:   Thu, 29 Aug 2019 16:31:03 +0800
Message-Id: <20190829083132.22394-2-duyuyang@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20190829083132.22394-1-duyuyang@gmail.com>
References: <20190829083132.22394-1-duyuyang@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

In lockdep, deadlock checkings are carried out at two places:

 - In current task's held lock stack, check lock recursion deadlock scenarios.
 - In dependency graph, check lock inversion deadlock scenarios.

Rename these two relevant functions for later use. Plus, with recursive-read
locks, only a dependency circle in lock graph is not sufficient condition
for lock inversion deadlocks anymore, so check_noncircular() is not entirely
accurate.

No functional change.

Signed-off-by: Yuyang Du <duyuyang@gmail.com>
---
 kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 15 ++++++++-------
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
index 3c3902c..3c89a50 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
@@ -1782,8 +1782,8 @@ unsigned long lockdep_count_backward_deps(struct lock_class *class)
  * Print an error and return 0 if it does.
  */
 static noinline int
-check_noncircular(struct held_lock *src, struct held_lock *target,
-		  struct lock_trace **const trace)
+check_deadlock_graph(struct held_lock *src, struct held_lock *target,
+		     struct lock_trace **const trace)
 {
 	int ret;
 	struct lock_list *uninitialized_var(target_entry);
@@ -2372,7 +2372,8 @@ static inline void inc_chains(void)
 }
 
 /*
- * Check whether we are holding such a class already.
+ * Check whether we are holding such a class already in the current
+ * held lock stack.
  *
  * (Note that this has to be done separately, because the graph cannot
  * detect such classes of deadlocks.)
@@ -2380,7 +2381,7 @@ static inline void inc_chains(void)
  * Returns: 0 on deadlock detected, 1 on OK, 2 on recursive read
  */
 static int
-check_deadlock(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *next)
+check_deadlock_current(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *next)
 {
 	struct held_lock *prev;
 	struct held_lock *nest = NULL;
@@ -2465,7 +2466,7 @@ static inline void inc_chains(void)
 
 	/*
 	 * Prove that the new <prev> -> <next> dependency would not
-	 * create a circular dependency in the graph. (We do this by
+	 * create a deadlock scenario in the graph. (We do this by
 	 * a breadth-first search into the graph starting at <next>,
 	 * and check whether we can reach <prev>.)
 	 *
@@ -2473,7 +2474,7 @@ static inline void inc_chains(void)
 	 * MAX_CIRCULAR_QUEUE_SIZE) which keeps track of a breadth of nodes
 	 * in the graph whose neighbours are to be checked.
 	 */
-	ret = check_noncircular(next, prev, trace);
+	ret = check_deadlock_graph(next, prev, trace);
 	if (unlikely(ret <= 0))
 		return 0;
 
@@ -2952,7 +2953,7 @@ static int validate_chain(struct task_struct *curr,
 		 * The simple case: does the current hold the same lock
 		 * already?
 		 */
-		int ret = check_deadlock(curr, hlock);
+		int ret = check_deadlock_current(curr, hlock);
 
 		if (!ret)
 			return 0;
-- 
1.8.3.1