On Mon, 2010-08-16 at 21:35 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
quoted text
> Le lundi 16 août 2010 à 21:16 +0200, Peter Zijlstra a écrit :
> 
> > Adding lockdep_off() is just plain wrong, if you cannot describe the
> > locking there's a fair chance its wrong anyway.
> > 
> 
> I see.
> 
> I described the fine locking after Steven comment, adding a long
> Changelog.
> 
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/61827/
> 
> If someone thinks this locking is buggy, please speak now ;)

Urgh,.. I think it might be correct, but wtf! Wasn't this originally RCU
code, why not go back to using RCU now that we have
synchronize_rcu_expedited()?

As to the original issue, why not keep that bh stuff disabled for
CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING instead, that will at least let you keep lock
coverage, adding lockdep_off() will hide any cycles that would involve
this lock (even though its currently a leaf lock, you never know what
creative things the future brings).

This fancy open coded lock looks like utter fail for -rt though.. please
use RCU if at all possible.


--
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/