Commit bf998b98 authored by Yuyang Du's avatar Yuyang Du Committed by Ingo Molnar

locking/lockdep: Remove !dir in lock irq usage check

In mark_lock_irq(), the following checks are performed:

   ----------------------------------
  |   ->      | unsafe | read unsafe |
  |----------------------------------|
  | safe      |  F  B  |    F* B*    |
  |----------------------------------|
  | read safe |  F? B* |      -      |
   ----------------------------------

Where:
F: check_usage_forwards
B: check_usage_backwards
*: check enabled by STRICT_READ_CHECKS
?: check enabled by the !dir condition

From checking point of view, the special F? case does not make sense,
whereas it perhaps is made for peroformance concern. As later patch will
address this issue, remove this exception, which makes the checks
consistent later.

With STRICT_READ_CHECKS = 1 which is default, there is no functional
change.
Signed-off-by: default avatarYuyang Du <duyuyang@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarPeter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: bvanassche@acm.org
Cc: frederic@kernel.org
Cc: ming.lei@redhat.com
Cc: will.deacon@arm.com
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190506081939.74287-24-duyuyang@gmail.comSigned-off-by: default avatarIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
parent 4d56330d
......@@ -3235,7 +3235,7 @@ mark_lock_irq(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *this,
* Validate that the lock dependencies don't have conflicting usage
* states.
*/
if ((!read || !dir || STRICT_READ_CHECKS) &&
if ((!read || STRICT_READ_CHECKS) &&
!usage(curr, this, excl_bit, state_name(new_bit & ~LOCK_USAGE_READ_MASK)))
return 0;
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment