[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111110172256.GD2354@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 09:22:56 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
rostedt@...dmis.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, dhowells@...hat.com,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, darren@...art.com, patches@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 05/28] lockdep: Update documentation
for lock-class leak detection
On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 03:02:08PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-11-03 at 12:42 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > If so, could we simply arrange to have lockdep scream when it encounters
> > > an uninitialized spinlock?
> >
> > I reworded to distinguish between compile-time initialization (which will
> > cause lockdep to have a separate class per instance) and run-time
> > initialization (which will cause lockdep to have one class total).
>
> Right, runtime init will key off of the call-site, compile-time init
> will key off of the static data address.
>
> > Making lockdep scream in this case might be useful, but if I understand
> > correctly, that would give false positives for compile-time initialized
> > global locks.
>
> Yeah, that's going to bring a lot of pain with it, in particular all the
> early stuff like the init task etc. are all statically initialized.
OK, will stick with the current approach, then.
Thanx, Paul
--
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