On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Gautham R Shenoy <ego@in.ibm.com> wrote:
quoted text
> Subject: lockdep: fix recursive read lock validation
>  This means that the following sequence is now invalid, whereas previously
>  it was considered valid:
>
>   rlock(a); rlock(b); runlock(b); runlock(a)
>   rlock(b); rlock(a);

Why are you marking this sequence as invalid ? Although it can be
debated whether it is good programming practice to be inconsistent
about the order of read-locking, the above sequence can't be involved
in a deadlock.

Bart.
--
unsubscribe notice
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/