[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.00.0803250915330.3781@apollo.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:19:11 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/5] infrastructure to debug (dynamic) objects
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 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.
/me looks for volunteers :)
> b) but this code internally uses spinlocks. Will it explode?
It should not, but we can use untracked spinlocks for the internals.
> also list_heads and hlists. But
>
> a) that might be a bit redundant against the custome debugging which lists
> already have and
Yup.
> b) this code uses lists and hlists internally?
Yes, it uses hlists.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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