Re: [PATCH] slub: fix false-positive lockdep warning infree_partial()

[David Rientjes]

On Tue, 4 Feb 2014, Christoph Lameter wrote:

> > Although this cannot actually result in a race, because on cache
> > destruction there should not be any concurrent frees or allocations from
> > the cache, let's add spin_lock/unlock to free_partial() just to keep
> > lockdep happy.
> 
> Please add a comment that says this in the source so we know why this was
> added.
> 

Makes sense since there is a comment there already saying we don't need 
the lock, then with this patch we end up taking it away.  The nice thing 
is that there should be no lock contention here :)

I'm not sure we need to disable irqs as in the patch, though.
--
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/