[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120509092536.GC8585@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 11:25:36 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next oops in __lock_acquire for process_one_work
* Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 9 May 2012, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-05-08 at 11:11 -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > Please send me the version of patch you'd like to put in
> > > (lest I make it up myself and you don't like the result).
> >
> > something like so?
>
> More like the one below: I'm not alone in preferring a comma
> between args!
Silly compilers!
> And you're not a believer in checkpatch.pl, I see: I've removed trailing
> spaces; but left the 85-col line, that's not a fight I'll have with you.
I suspect we could break up the prototype like this:
static inline void
lockdep_copy_map(struct lockdep_map *to, struct lockdep_map *from)
> I'll set it going when I get home later - thanks.
Do we still need an explanation about why it's needed and why it
makes a difference?
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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