Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\s+05\/13\]\s+XFS\:\s+Fix\s+lock\s+ASSERT\s+on\s+UP\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\s+05\/13\]\s+XFS\:\s+Fix\s+lock\s+ASSERT\s+on\s+UP\s*$/: 7 ]

Total 7 documents matching your query.

1. [PATCH 05/13] XFS: Fix lock ASSERT on UP (score: 1): Author: Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 17:47:09 -0700; ASSERT(!spin_is_locked()) doesn't work on UP builds. Replace with a standard lockdep_assert_held() Cc: xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- fs/xfs/xfs_iget.c | 4; /archives/xfs-masters/2012-03/msg00029.html (7,838 bytes)
2. Re: [PATCH 05/13] XFS: Fix lock ASSERT on UP (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 19:21:14 -0400; The "standard" is assert_spin_locked() - which not only is much cheaper but also has the advantage of working in non-lockdep builds.; /archives/xfs-masters/2012-03/msg00031.html (7,858 bytes)
3. Re: [PATCH 05/13] XFS: Fix lock ASSERT on UP (score: 1): Author: Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 01:52:01 +0200; But then you have it unconditional, not just on debug builds. -Andi -- ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Speaking for myself only.; /archives/xfs-masters/2012-03/msg00032.html (8,861 bytes)
4. Re: [PATCH 05/13] XFS: Fix lock ASSERT on UP (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 15:13:48 +1100; And the problem with that is what? There is so little overhead to the check it doesn't matter that it is enabled in production kernels... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; /archives/xfs-masters/2012-03/msg00033.html (9,067 bytes)
5. Re: [PATCH 05/13] XFS: Fix lock ASSERT on UP (score: 1): Author: Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 16:04:57 +0200; It's really interesting how much you guys argue for your buggy construct which you clearly never tested on a UP build... Not sure if that is a hot path, but on highly contended locks every cache line; /archives/xfs-masters/2012-03/msg00038.html (10,462 bytes)
6. Re: [PATCH 05/13] XFS: Fix lock ASSERT on UP (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 10:10:59 -0400; spin_is_locked always return 0 on UP builds, and given that XFS only has !spin_is_locked asserts things will work just fine on UP builds (not the !CONFIG_SMP and !CONFIG_XFS_DEBUG would be a common c; /archives/xfs-masters/2012-03/msg00039.html (10,252 bytes)
7. Re: [PATCH 05/13] XFS: Fix lock ASSERT on UP (score: 1): Author: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 14:31:31 -0700; (old thread) Perhaps assert_spin_locked() would be better - any advantages of lockdep_assert_held() don't seem to outweigh the cost of using a new interface. And I'm not sure that I buy the performan; /archives/xfs-masters/2012-04/msg00005.html (9,484 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 7
Page: [1]