imple to make lockdep self-initialize on demand. I
> > don't think it'll affect performance much at all and it takes away all
> > these "has lockdep initialized yet" concerns?
> >
>
> Yes, this seems a better choice.
> It also should protect us f
On 02/02/2016 01:21 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 18:10:38 +0300 Andrey Ryabinin
> wrote:
>
>> On 01/30/2016 03:36 AM, Mike Krinkin wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> option CONFIG_UBSAN_ALIGNMENT breaks x86-64 kernel with lockdep enabled,
>>
On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 18:10:38 +0300 Andrey Ryabinin
wrote:
> On 01/30/2016 03:36 AM, Mike Krinkin wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > option CONFIG_UBSAN_ALIGNMENT breaks x86-64 kernel with lockdep enabled,
> > i. e kernel with CONFIG_UBSAN_ALIGNMENT fails to load without
On 01/30/2016 03:36 AM, Mike Krinkin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> option CONFIG_UBSAN_ALIGNMENT breaks x86-64 kernel with lockdep enabled,
> i. e kernel with CONFIG_UBSAN_ALIGNMENT fails to load without even any
> error message.
>
> The problem is that ubsan callbacks use spinlock
Hi,
option CONFIG_UBSAN_ALIGNMENT breaks x86-64 kernel with lockdep enabled,
i. e kernel with CONFIG_UBSAN_ALIGNMENT fails to load without even any
error message.
The problem is that ubsan callbacks use spinlocks and might be called
before lockdep is initialized. Particularly this line in the
5 matches
Mail list logo