On Thu, 2007-07-05 at 10:53 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > +#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP > > +/* > > + * HACK! This really should call lockdep_init_map() but can't > > + * because there's no requirement to initialise work structs > > + * at runtime. This works because subclass == 0. > > + * > > + * NB: because we have to copy the lockdep_map, setting .key > > + * here is required! > > + */ > > why do you consider this a hack? A static object is a static object, and > its own address is its key. That's what we have for like 80% of all the > spinlocks in the kernel. Static initialization is not as flexible as > dynamic initialization, but the lockdep engine handles it. Am i missing > something? Well, there's nothing in lockdep that guarantees that. I'd be much more comfortable doing that when lockdep had a STATIC_LOCKDEP_MAP_INIT() macro that looks like my __WORK_INIT_LOCKDEP_MAP() macro because then people changing lockdep would see that they cannot rely on lockdep_init_map() having been called (unless subclass != 0) johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] debug work struct cancel deadlocks with lockdep
- From: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] debug work struct cancel deadlocks with lockdep
- References:
- [PATCH] debug work struct cancel deadlocks with lockdep
- From: Johannes Berg <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] debug work struct cancel deadlocks with lockdep
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- [PATCH] debug work struct cancel deadlocks with lockdep
- Prev by Date: Re: Fw: [PATCH] ia64: race flushing icache in do_no_page path
- Next by Date: Re: [linux-pm] Re: [PATCH] Remove process freezer from suspend to RAM pathway
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] debug work struct cancel deadlocks with lockdep
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] debug work struct cancel deadlocks with lockdep
- Index(es):