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

[Peter Zijlstra]

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.
--
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/