Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758375AbYHDOcx (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Aug 2008 10:32:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757215AbYHDOcS (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Aug 2008 10:32:18 -0400 Received: from viefep11-int.chello.at ([62.179.121.31]:60549 "EHLO viefep11-int.chello.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756928AbYHDOcR (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Aug 2008 10:32:17 -0400 Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 7/7] lockdep: spin_lock_nest_lock() From: Peter Zijlstra To: Roland Dreier Cc: Linus Torvalds , David Miller , jeremy@goop.org, hugh@veritas.com, mingo@elte.hu, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, davej@redhat.com In-Reply-To: References: <20080804130317.994042639@chello.nl> <20080804131012.246115111@chello.nl> <1217859571.3589.7.camel@twins> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 16:32:12 +0200 Message-Id: <1217860332.3589.11.camel@twins> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 873 Lines: 23 On Mon, 2008-08-04 at 07:26 -0700, Roland Dreier wrote: > > No more than 48 locks (mutexes, rwlocks, spinlock, RCU, everything > > covered by lockdep) held by any one code-path; including nested > > interrupt contexts. > > Does that mean that something like the new mm_take_all_locks() operation > is going to explode if someone tries to use it with lockdep on? Gah - yes, clearly nobody tried this.. :-/ Just looking at the code it will not only run into this limit, but it would warn about recursion on the second file/anon vma due to utter lack of annotation. Why are people still developing without lockdep? /me sad -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/