Re: [RFC][PATCH 7/7] lockdep: spin_lock_nest_lock()

[Peter Zijlstra]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/