From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 12:08:42 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 12:08:22 -0500 Received: from colorfullife.com ([216.156.138.34]:59657 "EHLO colorfullife.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 12:08:20 -0500 Message-ID: <3C221B09.4090201@colorfullife.com> Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 18:08:25 +0100 From: Manfred Spraul User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.5) Gecko/20011012 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anton Blanchard CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] improve spinlock debugging In-Reply-To: <3C0BDC33.6E18C815@colorfullife.com> <20011219025332.GA18344@krispykreme> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Anton Blanchard wrote: > >What do you think of the idea below? We create arch specific spinlock >functions as __foo and wrap the debugging bits around them as foo. This >should also allow us to unify the UP and SMP spinlock debugging somewhat. > I tried to create a minimal patch, to reduce the probability of patch conflicts with earlier/future kernels. I agree that your solutition is better if the patch is included in Linus/Marcelo's tree. Have you asked Linus about it? I love runtime checks, but IIRC the majority of the kernel maintainers disagrees. -- Manfred