[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080324130454.ced60108.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 13:04:54 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, greg@...ah.com,
randy.dunlap@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [patch 2/5] infrastructure to debug (dynamic) objects
On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 20:26:18 -0000
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> The debugobjects core code keeps track of operations on static and
> dynamic objects by inserting them into a hashed list and sanity
> checking them on object operations and provides additional checks
> whenever kernel memory is freed.
Prime candidates for conversion to this interface are locks: spinlocks,
rwlocks, mutexes, etc.
a) it'd be interesting to get that done, as a proof-of-usefulness thing.
b) but this code internally uses spinlocks. Will it explode?
also list_heads and hlists. But
a) that might be a bit redundant against the custome debugging which lists
already have and
b) this code uses lists and hlists internally?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists