From 26575e28df5eb2050c02369843faba38cecb4d8c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 14:53:24 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] lockdep: remove extra "irq" string
Impact: clarify lockdep printk text
print_irq_inversion_bug() gets handed state strings of the form
"HARDIRQ", "SOFTIRQ", "RECLAIM_FS"
and appends "-irq-{un,}safe" to them, which is either redudant for *IRQ or
confusing in the RECLAIM_FS case.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
LKML-Reference: <1236175192.5330.7585.camel@laptop>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
---
kernel/lockdep.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/lockdep.c b/kernel/lockdep.c
index ef6584fd9fe5..02014f7ccc86 100644
--- a/kernel/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/lockdep.c
@@ -1900,9 +1900,9 @@ print_irq_inversion_bug(struct task_struct *curr, struct lock_class *other,
curr->comm, task_pid_nr(curr));
print_lock(this);
if (forwards)
- printk("but this lock took another, %s-irq-unsafe lock in the past:\n", irqclass);
+ printk("but this lock took another, %s-unsafe lock in the past:\n", irqclass);
else
- printk("but this lock was taken by another, %s-irq-safe lock in the past:\n", irqclass);
+ printk("but this lock was taken by another, %s-safe lock in the past:\n", irqclass);
print_lock_name(other);
printk("\n\nand interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.\n\n");
--
GitLab