On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 01:20:59PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
quoted text
> 
> * Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > +	if (!rcu_scheduler_active || !debug_locks)
> > +		return 1;
> > +	return lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map);
> 
> > +	if (!rcu_scheduler_active || !debug_locks)
> > +		return 1;
> > +	return lock_is_held(&rcu_bh_lock_map);
> 
> i guess there could be a common helper here?

Will do!

quoted text
> Also, could we clear rcu_scheduler_active when we clear debug_locks? That way 
> only a single test is needed, a generic 'is lock debugging active'.

Doing that will break synchronize_rcu(), which returns immediately if
!rcu_scheduler_active.

quoted text
> (Which test should probably be unlikely() as well?)

Good point, will fix.

							Thanx, Paul
--
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/