From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754878AbaBDUuy (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Feb 2014 15:50:54 -0500 Received: from qmta07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.64]:35674 "EHLO qmta07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753440AbaBDUuv (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Feb 2014 15:50:51 -0500 X-Greylist: delayed 365 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Tue, 04 Feb 2014 15:50:51 EST Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 14:44:43 -0600 (CST) From: Christoph Lameter X-X-Sender: cl@nuc To: Vladimir Davydov cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, rientjes@google.com, penberg@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] slub: fix false-positive lockdep warning in free_partial() In-Reply-To: <1391517397-6142-1-git-send-email-vdavydov@parallels.com> Message-ID: References: <1391517397-6142-1-git-send-email-vdavydov@parallels.com> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 4 Feb 2014, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > Although this cannot actually result in a race, because on cache > destruction there should not be any concurrent frees or allocations from > the cache, let's add spin_lock/unlock to free_partial() just to keep > lockdep happy. Please add a comment that says this in the source so we know why this was added.