[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170817083313.GD11771@tardis>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 16:33:13 +0800
From: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
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
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 10:12:24AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * 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.
>
Oops, I miss this part.. so I will cook a patch define
lockdep_init_map_crosslock() when !LOCKDEP and I think based on that,
there is no need to introducde INIT_WQ_BARRIER_ONSTACK(), we can simply:
lockdep_init_map_crosslock(...);
__init_completion();
in insert_wq_barrier(). Simpler.
Thanks for your suggestion.
Regards,
Boqun
> Thanks,
>
> Ingo
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (485 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists