lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Jun]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateFri, 23 Jun 2006 12:04:39 +0200
FromIngo Molnar <>
SubjectRe: [patch 50/61] lock validator: special locking: hrtimer.c
* Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote:

> >  	for (i = 0; i < MAX_HRTIMER_BASES; i++, base++)
> > -		spin_lock_init(&base->lock);
> > +		spin_lock_init_static(&base->lock);
> >  }
> > 
> 
> Perhaps the validator core's implementation of spin_lock_init() could 
> look at the address and work out if it's within the static storage 
> sections.

yeah, but there are two cases: places where we want to 'unify' array 
locks into a single type, and places where we want to treat them 
separately. The case where we 'unify' is the more common one: locks 
embedded into hash-tables for example. So i went for annotating the ones 
that are rarer. There are 2 right now: scheduler, hrtimers, with the 
hrtimers one going away in the high-res-timers implementation. (we 
unified the hrtimers locks into a per-CPU lock) (there's also a kgdb 
annotation for -mm)

perhaps the naming should be clearer? I had it named 
spin_lock_init_standalone() originally, then cleaned it up to be 
spin_lock_init_static(). Maybe the original name is better?

	Ingo
-
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: 2006-06-23 10:11    [from the cache]
©2003-2008