Re: "movb" for spin-unlock (was Re: namei() query)
Jamie Lokier (lk@tantalophile.demon.co.uk)
Sun, 23 Apr 2000 09:04:36 +0200
Oliver Xymoron wrote:
> > I'd really like a tool that can check for missing locks, redundant
> > locks, operations that should be atomic, missing memory barriers, that
> > sort of thing. It's not easy is it? :-)
>
> It's provably equivalent to the halting problem, assuming you even have
> enough info in the source to automatically identify things that need
> atomicity. Anything with recursion or coroutines is liable to make it very
> unhappy.
>
> That said, quite a bit can be done with runtime checks ala the spinlock
> debugging code that can't be done by static analysis.
Everything that can be found using runtime tests can be found
statically in at most exponential time, except network protocols :-)
-- Jamie
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/