Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: lockdep complaints in slab allocator | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Date | Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:33:26 +0100 |
| |
On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 21:13 +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote: > Matt Mackall wrote: > > This seems like a lot of work to paper over a lockdep false positive in > > code that should be firmly in the maintenance end of its lifecycle? I'd > > rather the fix or papering over happen in lockdep. > > True that. Is __raw_spin_lock() out of question, Peter?-) Passing the > state is pretty invasive because of the kmem_cache_free() call in > slab_destroy(). We re-enter the slab allocator from the outer edges > which makes spin_lock_nested() very inconvenient.
I'm perfectly fine with letting the thing be as it is, its apparently not something that triggers very often, and since slab will be killed off soon, who cares.
| |