Re: Valgrind meets UML

Jeff Dike (jdike@karaya.com)
Sat, 21 Dec 2002 13:57:44 -0500


This is gibberish. You have no idea what you're talking about.

jreiser@BitWagon.com said:
> But in the abstract, and more importantly in the mind of the
> maintainer of a lock-free SMP allocator

"lock-free SMP"? This is very nearly a self-contradiction. If you'd bother
looking at the allocators, guess what you'll see? You'll see locking.

> who is trying to allow
> simultaneous allocation and valgrind of the allocator,

There is no "allowing" simultaneous allocation and valgrind of the allocator.

> then such atomicity problems are real.

Bullshit, there are no such atomicity problems.

> If nothing else, then such a maintainer will invent his own VALGRIND_*
> usage to express simultaneous {allocator, valgrind} state transitions
> precisely.

A maintainer will invent valgrind primitives to express concepts that valgrind
doesn't know about?

> to express simultaneous {allocator, valgrind} state transitions
> precisely.

There are no simultaneous allocator and valgrind state transitions.

You really need to acquire a clue from somewhere.

Jeff

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/