From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757352Ab1FFO6m (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Jun 2011 10:58:42 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:44403 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750978Ab1FFO6i (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Jun 2011 10:58:38 -0400 Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 16:58:27 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Arne Jansen , Linus Torvalds , mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, efault@gmx.de, npiggin@kernel.dk, akpm@linux-foundation.org, frank.rowand@am.sony.com, tglx@linutronix.de, linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [debug patch] printk: Add a printk killswitch to robustify NMI watchdog messages Message-ID: <20110606145827.GD30348@elte.hu> References: <20110605110132.GB23463@elte.hu> <20110605111933.GA24592@elte.hu> <20110605113627.GA25724@elte.hu> <4DEB6F3A.3000109@die-jansens.de> <20110605133958.GA27812@elte.hu> <4DEB8A93.30601@die-jansens.de> <20110605141003.GB29338@elte.hu> <4DEB933C.1070900@die-jansens.de> <20110605151323.GA30590@elte.hu> <1307349530.2353.7374.camel@twins> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1307349530.2353.7374.camel@twins> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.3.1 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Sun, 2011-06-05 at 17:13 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > Now, this patch alone just removes a debugging check - but i'm not > > sure the debugging check is correct - we take the pi_lock in a raw > > way - which means it's not lockdep covered. > > Ever since tglx did s/raw_/arch_/g raw_ is covered by lockdep. It's not lockdep covered due to the lockdep_off(), or am i missing something? Thanks, Ingo