On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 19:09 -0700, Paul Menage wrote: > On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 7:03 PM, Matt Helsley <matthltc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > True, though I don't think it's as simple as just enabling lockdep. My > > understanding is you won't be able to determine if locks could ever be > > taken out of order unless all of the cgroup systems are enabled and they > > are all in the same cgroup hierarchy. > > I wonder how hard it would be to extend lockdep to give a "signature" > of locking operations from point A to point B? Then you could just > compare a new subsystem with all existing subsystems without actually > running with it. something like: http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/22/308 ? _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers