Re: lockdep complaints in slab allocator

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 01:30:50PM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> 
> > That turns out to be _very_ hard. How about something like the following
> > untested patch which delays slab_destroy() while we're under nc->lock.
> 
> Code changes to deal with a diagnostic issue?

Indeed!  At least if we want the diagnostics to have any value, we do
need to avoid false alarms.  Same reasoning as for gcc warnings, right?

							Thanx, Paul
--
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/