Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20201113230048.1200162-1-jim.cromie@gmail.com> <20201117100256.GC3121406@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
In-Reply-To: <20201117100256.GC3121406@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   jim.cromie@gmail.com
Date:   Tue, 24 Nov 2020 14:27:28 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJfuBxzhgQ+fTA-iyqLrpZ-=9ipXZGOCznRMM8AZE5yFOGh6PA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking-selftest: add option to proceed through
 unexpected failures
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 3:02 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 04:00:48PM -0700, Jim Cromie wrote:
> > Locking selftest is currently (v.5.10-rc3) seeing 14 unexpected failures.
> > Add option to not disable debug_locks, so as to let it reveal any
> > locking flaws in new unrelated work.
>
> I'm assuming this is the arm64 fallout? Mark anything I can do to help
> you there?
>
> The reasoning doesn't make sense though; if it can't pass the selftest,
> then why would you trust any further reports?

because it knows more than I do.
having chosen to proceed anyway,
Im free to discount the advice.