lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Dec]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Valgrind meets UML
DateSat, 21 Dec 2002 13:57:44 -0500
FromJeff Dike <>
This is gibberish.  You have no idea what you're talking about.

jreiser@BitWagon.com said:
> But in the abstract, and more importantly in the mind of the
> maintainer of a lock-free SMP allocator 

"lock-free SMP"?  This is very nearly a self-contradiction.  If you'd bother
looking at the allocators, guess what you'll see?  You'll see locking.

> who is trying to allow
> simultaneous allocation and valgrind of the allocator, 

There is no "allowing" simultaneous allocation and valgrind of the allocator.

> then such atomicity problems are real.

Bullshit, there are no such atomicity problems.

> If nothing else, then such a maintainer will invent his own VALGRIND_*
> usage to express simultaneous {allocator, valgrind} state transitions
> precisely.

A maintainer will invent valgrind primitives to express concepts that valgrind
doesn't know about?  

> to express simultaneous {allocator, valgrind} state transitions
> precisely.

There are no simultaneous allocator and valgrind state transitions.

You really need to acquire a clue from somewhere.

				Jeff

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:31    [from the cache]
©2003-2008