Ingo Molnar wrote:
>* Barry K. Nathan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>>On 6/4/06, Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>reporting the first one only is necessary, because the validator cannot
>>>trust a system's dependency info that it sees as incorrect. Deadlock
>>>possibilities are quite rare in a kernel that is "in balance". Right now
>>>we are not "in balance" yet, because the validator has only been added a
>>>couple of days ago. The flurry of initial fixes will die down quickly.
>>>
>>>
>>So, does that mean the plan is to annotate/tweak things in order to
>>shut up *each and every* false positive in the kernel?
>>
>>
>
>yes.
>
Ingo is very much in the right here. Things like locking are very hard
to debug, and require serious methodology. It is worth the hassle. I
hope we do more things like this in the future.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
