From 3a85969e9d912d5dd85362ee37b5f81266e00e77 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2021 15:49:13 +0900
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] lockdep: Add a missing initialization hint to the "INFO:
Trying to register non-static key" message
Since this message is printed when dynamically allocated spinlocks (e.g.
kzalloc()) are used without initialization (e.g. spin_lock_init()),
suggest to developers to check whether initialization functions for objects
were called, before making developers wonder what annotation is missing.
[ mingo: Minor tweaks to the message. ]
Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210321064913.4619-1-penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
---
kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
index c6d0c1dc6253..c30eb887ca7d 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
@@ -930,7 +930,8 @@ static bool assign_lock_key(struct lockdep_map *lock)
/* Debug-check: all keys must be persistent! */
debug_locks_off();
pr_err("INFO: trying to register non-static key.\n");
- pr_err("the code is fine but needs lockdep annotation.\n");
+ pr_err("The code is fine but needs lockdep annotation, or maybe\n");
+ pr_err("you didn't initialize this object before use?\n");
pr_err("turning off the locking correctness validator.\n");
dump_stack();
return false;
From 6d48b7912cc72275dc7c59ff961c8bac7ef66a92 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 12:55:25 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] lockdep: Address clang -Wformat warning printing for %hd
Clang doesn't like format strings that truncate a 32-bit
value to something shorter:
kernel/locking/lockdep.c:709:4: error: format specifies type 'short' but the argument has type 'int' [-Werror,-Wformat]
In this case, the warning is a slightly questionable, as it could realize
that both class->wait_type_outer and class->wait_type_inner are in fact
8-bit struct members, even though the result of the ?: operator becomes an
'int'.
However, there is really no point in printing the number as a 16-bit
'short' rather than either an 8-bit or 32-bit number, so just change
it to a normal %d.
Fixes: de8f5e4f2dc1 ("lockdep: Introduce wait-type checks")
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210322115531.3987555-1-arnd@kernel.org
---
kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
index c30eb887ca7d..f160f1c97ca1 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
@@ -705,7 +705,7 @@ static void print_lock_name(struct lock_class *class)
printk(KERN_CONT " (");
__print_lock_name(class);
- printk(KERN_CONT "){%s}-{%hd:%hd}", usage,
+ printk(KERN_CONT "){%s}-{%d:%d}", usage,
class->wait_type_outer ?: class->wait_type_inner,
class->wait_type_inner);
}