Re: [patch 50/61] lock validator: special locking: hrtimer.c

[Ingo Molnar]

* Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> >  	for (i = 0; i < MAX_HRTIMER_BASES; i++, base++)
> > -		spin_lock_init(&base->lock);
> > +		spin_lock_init_static(&base->lock);
> >  }
> >  
> 
> Perhaps the validator core's implementation of spin_lock_init() could 
> look at the address and work out if it's within the static storage 
> sections.

yeah, but there are two cases: places where we want to 'unify' array 
locks into a single type, and places where we want to treat them 
separately. The case where we 'unify' is the more common one: locks 
embedded into hash-tables for example. So i went for annotating the ones 
that are rarer. There are 2 right now: scheduler, hrtimers, with the 
hrtimers one going away in the high-res-timers implementation. (we 
unified the hrtimers locks into a per-CPU lock) (there's also a kgdb 
annotation for -mm)

perhaps the naming should be clearer? I had it named 
spin_lock_init_standalone() originally, then cleaned it up to be 
spin_lock_init_static(). Maybe the original name is better?

	Ingo
-
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/