From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_GIT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17E0CC43381 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 07:58:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC650218D4 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 07:58:10 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="oWhjDMNo" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728053AbfCUH6J (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Mar 2019 03:58:09 -0400 Received: from mail-pg1-f194.google.com ([209.85.215.194]:35751 "EHLO mail-pg1-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728005AbfCUH6G (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Mar 2019 03:58:06 -0400 Received: by mail-pg1-f194.google.com with SMTP id g8so3694327pgf.2 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 00:58:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references; bh=Jie9sXrP5TbUt+dDutJxDwvf3sW4lsgNQ0u1ti/esj0=; b=oWhjDMNo4F0mSG81rzacO8SUY9SarkFynMmVcxWzc87/3Php8UzGm1Hwl6SHBADbjw TbsZmGOihlXoxwj6U6sSOmrTsYb4YpbQZViNWzxm+JGZVnVlI87cyGP0g8vJyzwLJB3V 6BbxmQXaGUMo9gJbumZQcmMvxyzM7tpxrUSjIrB8SnPP/pIvOhR43WsgcfPB5CR0nwAt gTzBFXzKC/qbTHtwaZoH8i/xUkMbJMwGrT0/J1svs9VCQmAqnKBqKjkbQkSRm781HKV1 7b3seHFqmt0pAYNugsM1gCxudHlfiPHhE7VhIIQ4QX0OZ/3INcSDSH19//PDIvNVTWLC XC7A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to :references; bh=Jie9sXrP5TbUt+dDutJxDwvf3sW4lsgNQ0u1ti/esj0=; b=BpHp44IbMW854Ho0Nv83BKvKaPQSmWMeC25C8G1V5QQ0RF6oSIYRDlW0UlhNGNcB10 tooQ9f7btgESQBcLT9nSo6egm80VMVod/xw3y4/Xy0BOOK4oeiNv8GZFCPvlNrg9QJRl CRhOmR6yWH+SkWmbqJ31Bki7luVFaT2b/F+fcwhEhHUJ9FQRD28IepyjHdM933gqUP7y E1WFSvHP56OdbXcI6oHFnrhMT5CD+UlNNFx0SEPd/Rpgg87IadycjTnArdGDn/6FJzxr UJqcnTyDH2eqfu0MZgQTK44MPIefiSeiFhjiHHa40I/tacdDZxqkzmm5SGEbGW4vJVLM D10A== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWbPxMZMZylGLK9XhY4+uBKH6fx3/U86gVw+8N+c1wAD43cII51 5Fcz9D2vJ6aFexk1vkMflso= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy2jOUpDdUyGMRSfoI+dCnzB8Ediw/7BYiX01CnF/sjpHnNfRVZ7nMWcWcJ18o8KV93o5lP0g== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:8609:: with SMTP id f9mr2192539plo.85.1553155086356; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 00:58:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([203.100.54.194]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e184sm6467148pfc.143.2019.03.21.00.58.03 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 21 Mar 2019 00:58:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Yuyang Du To: peterz@infradead.org, will.deacon@arm.com, mingo@kernel.org Cc: bvanassche@acm.org, ming.lei@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, joe@perches.com, Yuyang Du Subject: [PATCH v3 11/18] locking/lockdep: Update comment Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 15:57:18 +0800 Message-Id: <20190321075725.14054-12-duyuyang@gmail.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.17.2 (Apple Git-113) In-Reply-To: <20190321075725.14054-1-duyuyang@gmail.com> References: <20190321075725.14054-1-duyuyang@gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org An out-of-nowhere comment is removed. While at it, add more explanatory comments. Such a trivial patch! Signed-off-by: Yuyang Du --- kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 12 +++++++++--- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c index c7aec9f..eccfb0b 100644 --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c @@ -2720,10 +2720,16 @@ static int validate_chain(struct task_struct *curr, * - is softirq-safe, if this lock is hardirq-unsafe * * And check whether the new lock's dependency graph - * could lead back to the previous lock. + * could lead back to the previous lock: * - * any of these scenarios could lead to a deadlock. If - * All validations + * - within the current held-lock stack + * - across our accumulated lock dependency records + * + * any of these scenarios could lead to a deadlock. + */ + /* + * The simple case: does the current hold the same lock + * already? */ int ret = check_deadlock(curr, hlock, hlock->read); -- 1.8.3.1