Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 05/28] lockdep: Update documentation for lock-class leak detection | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Date | Wed, 09 Nov 2011 15:02:08 +0100 |
| |
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.
| |