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

From: Christoph Lameter
Date: Tue Feb 04 2014 - 15:51:06 EST

On Tue, 4 Feb 2014, Vladimir Davydov 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
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at