[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140109221221.GG7572@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 23:12:21 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] lockdep: Introduce wait-type checks
On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 12:33:26PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 12:15:16PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Subject: lockdep: Introduce wait-type checks
> > From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> > Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 21:45:48 +0100
> >
> > This patch extends lockdep to validate lock wait-type context.
>
> ooh, a new toy.
>
> *boom*
>
Oh cute, I'll have to stare at slub. ISTR there's a current slub-rt
patch floating about.
I'd have to just blindly convert slub to raw_spinlocks (although that'll
get rid of the warning) without trying to limit the lock hold time of
raw_spinlocks.
> nitpick: Why is the backtrace printed twice ?
Because I'm an idiot, lemme fix that ;-)
--
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