[lkml]   [2011]   [Nov]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 05/28] lockdep: Update documentation for lock-class leak detection
On Thu, 2011-11-03 at 12:42 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > If so, could we simply arrange to have lockdep scream when it encounters
> > an uninitialized spinlock?
> I reworded to distinguish between compile-time initialization (which will
> cause lockdep to have a separate class per instance) and run-time
> initialization (which will cause lockdep to have one class total).

Right, runtime init will key off of the call-site, compile-time init
will key off of the static data address.

> Making lockdep scream in this case might be useful, but if I understand
> correctly, that would give false positives for compile-time initialized
> global locks.

Yeah, that's going to bring a lot of pain with it, in particular all the
early stuff like the init task etc. are all statically initialized.

 \ /
  Last update: 2011-11-09 15:05    [W:0.089 / U:0.524 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site