Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Valgrind meets UML | Date | Sat, 21 Dec 2002 13:57:44 -0500 | From | Jeff 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/
| |