On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com> wrote: >> However, I still think that FALLBACK_BASE only adds the unnecessary >> complications. But even if I am right this is subjective of course, please >> feel free to ignore.
Would it help if I sent out that version (without FALLBACK_BASE) as a formal proposal ? > Hmm. But then I do not understand the lglock annotations. Obviously, > rwlock_acquire_read() in lg_local_lock() can't even detect the simplest > deadlock, say, lg_local_lock(LOCK) + lg_local_lock(LOCK). Not to mention > spin_lock(X) + lg_local_lock(Y) vs lg_local_lock(Y) + spin_lock(X). > > OK, I understand that it is not easy to make these annotations correct... I am going to send out a proposal to fix the existing lglock annotations and detect the two cases you noticed. It's actually not that hard :) -- Michel "Walken" Lespinasse A program is never fully debugged until the last user dies. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
