From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Wilcox Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:04:13 +0000 Subject: Re: [KJ] [PATCH] unified spinlock Message-Id: <20050120200413.GL25940@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============84131676714339376==" List-Id: References: <41EFCFDC.4060509@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <41EFCFDC.4060509@osdl.org> To: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org --===============84131676714339376== Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 08:50:47AM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 07:44:24AM -0800, Randy.Dunlap wrote: > > Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > >I think this is referring to initialisation of spinlocks that are > > >allocated dynamically, not statically. If a lock validator can't cope > > >with that, it needs to be fixed, IMO. > > Yes, it is. See the number of patches that have been flowing into the > kernel lately to fix this issue up. However, the correct way to fix this is to use DEFINE_SPIN_LOCK, not to make static locks dynamically initialised. -- "Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." -- Mark Twain --===============84131676714339376== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Kernel-janitors mailing list Kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors --===============84131676714339376==--