Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 05/28] lockdep: Update documentationfor lock-class leak detection

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 03:02:08PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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.

OK, will stick with the current approach, then.

								Thanx, Paul

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