[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1406042155160.18296@nanos>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 21:56:14 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
Subject: Re: [patch v2 2/5] rtmutex: Cleanup deadlock detector debug logic
On Wed, 4 Jun 2014, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jun 2014 15:17:35 +0200 (CEST)
> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
>
> > > > +static int rt_mutex_cond_detect_deadlock(struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter,
> > > > + enum rtmutex_chainwalk detect)
> > > > +{
> > > > + return debug_rt_mutex_detect_deadlock(waiter, detect);
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +/*
> > >
> > > I'm curious to why you created this wrapper function that adds no
> > > value? Why not call debug_rt_mutex_detect_deadlock() directly?
> >
> > debug_rt_mutex_detect_deadlock() smells like a magic debug feature,
> > while rt_mutex_cond_detect_deadlock() clearly says; It's
> > conditional.
>
> Which brings up the next obvious question. Um, why not just rename
> debug_rt_mutex_detect_deadlock() to rt_mutex_cond_detect_deadlock()?
Because I wanted to keep the cond function in the main source file
along with the comments instead of having two of the same in the
headers.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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