On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 03:30:35PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 05/22/2013 05:17 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 11:15:34PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> >> --- /dev/null
> >> +++ b/tools/lib/lockdep/uinclude/linux/lockdep.h
> >> @@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
> >> +#ifndef _LIBLOCKDEP_LOCK
On 05/22/2013 05:17 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 11:15:34PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/tools/lib/lockdep/uinclude/linux/lockdep.h
>> @@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
>> +#ifndef _LIBLOCKDEP_LOCKDEP_H_
>> +#define _LIBLOCKDEP_LOCKDEP_H_
>> +
>> +#include
>> +#include
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 11:15:34PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/lib/lockdep/uinclude/linux/lockdep.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
> +#ifndef _LIBLOCKDEP_LOCKDEP_H_
> +#define _LIBLOCKDEP_LOCKDEP_H_
> +
> +#include
> +#include
> +#include
> +#include
> +#include
> +
> +
> +#def
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 11:15:34PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> kernel/lockdep.c deals with validating locking scenarios for
> various architectures supported by the kernel. There isn't
> anything kernel specific going on in lockdep, and when we
> compare userspace to other architectures that don't
kernel/lockdep.c deals with validating locking scenarios for
various architectures supported by the kernel. There isn't
anything kernel specific going on in lockdep, and when we
compare userspace to other architectures that don't have to deal
with irqs such as s390, they become all too similar.
We
5 matches
Mail list logo