[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111103132942.GY2287@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 06:29:42 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
dhowells@...hat.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com, darren@...art.com,
patches@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 17/28] rcu: Make srcu_read_lock_held()
call common lockdep-enabled function
On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 12:14:20PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 08:48:54PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 01:30:38PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
> > >
> > > A common debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() function is used to check whether
> > > RCU lockdep splats should be reported, but srcu_read_lock() does not
> > > use it. This commit therefore brings srcu_read_lock_held() up to date.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >
> > Just how signed off does this patch need to be? ;)
If you have sufficient patience to scroll past the Signed-off-by's
to see the patch, then there clearly are not enough. ;-)
> Dunno but I feel uncomfortable now with that strange feeling I'm walking
> on the street with two Paul holding my hand on each side.
I did catch one of these, but missed the other. Here is the history:
o Paul wrote the patch.
o Frederic reworked the patches that this one depended on,
and then resent the patch.
o Paul did "git am -s" on the series that Frederic sent,
which added the extra Signed-off-by.
It is not clear to me what the Signed-off-by chain should look like in
this case. My default action would be to remove my second Signed-off-by.
Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists