[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170817081224.yp3qhqt6vijzvvpz@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 10:12:24 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Cc: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, peterz@...radead.org,
walken@...gle.com, kirill@...temov.name,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, willy@...radead.org, npiggin@...il.com,
kernel-team@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 00/14] lockdep: Implement crossrelease feature
* Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com> wrote:
> > BTW., I don't think the #ifdef is necessary: lockdep_init_map_crosslock should map
> > to nothing when lockdep is disabled, right?
>
> IIUC, lockdep_init_map_crosslock is only defined when
> CONFIG_LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE=y,
Then lockdep_init_map_crosslock() should be defined in the !LOCKDEP case as well.
> [...] moreover, completion::map, which used as
> the parameter of lockdep_init_map_crosslock(), is only defined when
> CONFIG_LOCKDEP_COMPLETE=y.
If the !LOCKDEP wrapper is a CPP macro then it can ignore that parameter just
fine, and it won't be built.
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists