Re: [patch 2/5] infrastructure to debug (dynamic) objects

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 20:26:18 -0000
> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > The debugobjects core code keeps track of operations on static and
> > dynamic objects by inserting them into a hashed list and sanity
> > checking them on object operations and provides additional checks
> > whenever kernel memory is freed.
> 
> Prime candidates for conversion to this interface are locks: spinlocks,
> rwlocks, mutexes, etc.
> 
> a) it'd be interesting to get that done, as a proof-of-usefulness thing.

/me looks for volunteers :)
 
> b) but this code internally uses spinlocks.  Will it explode?

It should not, but we can use untracked spinlocks for the internals.

> also list_heads and hlists.  But
> 
> a) that might be a bit redundant against the custome debugging which lists
>    already have and

Yup.
 
> b) this code uses lists and hlists internally?

Yes, it uses hlists.

Thanks,

	tglx
 
--
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/