On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 05:09:38PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-03-12 at 08:43 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 04:28:25PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2013-03-12 at 14:05 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > @@ -111,17 +111,17 @@ struct bus_type {
> > > > struct iommu_ops *iommu_ops;
> > > >
> > > > struct subsys_private *p;
> > > > + struct lock_class_key __key;
> > > > };
> > >
> > > Is struct bus_type constrained to static storage or can people go an
> > > allocate this stuff dynamically? If so, this patch is broken.
> >
> > I don't think anyone is creating this dynamically, it should be static.
> > Why does this matter, does the lockdep code care about where the
> > variable is declared (heap vs. static)?
>
> Yeah, lockdep needs keys to be in static storage since its data
> structures are append-only. Dynamic stuff would require being able to
> remove everything related to a key so that we can re-purpose it for the
> next allocation etc.
Ah, that makes sense, thanks.
> Lockdep will in fact warn (and disable itself) if you try and feed it
> dynamic addresses, so using it like this will effectively check your
> bus_type static storage 'requirement'.
Ok, then it should be fine. Michal, care to redo this and resend it?
thanks,
greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>