Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen/spinlock: disable spinlock debugging in console_force_unlock()

[Jürgen Groß <jgross@xxxxxxxx>]

On 08.01.20 11:58, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 08/01/2020 10:43, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > console_force_unlock() might result in subsequent ASSERT() triggering
> > when CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCKS was active. Avoid that by calling
> > spin_debug_disable() in console_force_unlock() and make the spinlock
> > debug assertions trigger only if spin_debug was active.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   xen/common/spinlock.c      | 2 +-
> >   xen/drivers/char/console.c | 1 +
> >   2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/xen/common/spinlock.c b/xen/common/spinlock.c
> > index ed69f0a4d2..2a06de3e6a 100644
> > --- a/xen/common/spinlock.c
> > +++ b/xen/common/spinlock.c
> > @@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ static void got_lock(union lock_debug *debug)
> >   
> >   static void rel_lock(union lock_debug *debug)
> >   {
> > -    ASSERT(debug->cpu == smp_processor_id());
> > +    ASSERT(atomic_read(&spin_debug) <= 0 || debug->cpu == smp_processor_id());
> Personally, I think the logic would be easier to follow as:
>
> if ( atomic_read(&spin_debug) )
>      ASSERT(debug->cpu == smp_processor_id());
>
> Otherwise, LGTM.  Acked-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>.
> Can be fixed on commit if you agree.
No objection from me.


Juergen

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel