From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Jones Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 01:02:34 +0000 Subject: Re: [KJ] updated kj-devel.pl Message-Id: <20050208010233.GB6853@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============27636484044698406==" List-Id: References: <200502041215.01436.vicente.feito@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200502041215.01436.vicente.feito@gmail.com> To: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org --===============27636484044698406== Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 04:46:58PM -0800, Randy.Dunlap wrote: > spinlock misuse detection is often not straightforward. > E.g., in kernel/acct.c (2.6.11-rc3), I'm getting: > Lock closed on line 115 > Lock closed on line 162 > Obtained spinlock on line 198, but never unlocked. > acct.c:198: spin_lock(&acct_globals.lock); > > > Lock closed on line 247 > Lock closed on line 263 > Lock closed on line 521 > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ these line numbers appear to be off by 1 line. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You're probably best off throwing away the spinlock detection code. Its horrible, and breaks really easily. I'm almost embarressed to admit to writing it. Sparse should be able to do a much better job. Dave --===============27636484044698406== 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 --===============27636484044698406==--