[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171019181505.gpjnwi2csdvy53vd@linutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 20:15:05 +0200
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: kbuild test robot <fengguang.wu@...el.com>, kbuild-all@...org,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: do not include rtmutex_common.h unconditionally
On 2017-10-18 13:42:59 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> Builds for me on x86 and 0day test robot hasn't complained, but might
> as well get it right.
So I checked you tree and there is this:
|$ git one bc2eecd7ecce40af43b6eb3d256b6076257df846
|bc2eecd7ecce ("futex: Allow for compiling out PI support")
|$ git describe bc2eecd7ecce40af43b6eb3d256b6076257df846 --contains
|v4.14-rc1~162^2~57
so this exploded on my side because I applied it on top of v3.13, you on
the other hand had it post v4.13-rc1 so it was all good.
Now, that it is possible to include that header file with and without
CONFIG_RT_MUTEX=y we could indeed move that include outside of that
ifdef. Sorry for that.
We could do that and move the two defines (rt_mutex_owner +
rt_mutex_futex_unlock) to the rtmutex_common.h like in bc2eecd7ecce.
This might look good, I don't know. If you want, I can prepare a patch
for that, we could leave it as it…
> The new commits are:
>
> a06f537e75ea ("rcu: do not include rtmutex_common.h unconditionally")
> 4a0fb5d70bb2 ("rcu: Suppress lockdep false-positive ->boost_mtx complaints")
Okay, thanks.
> Thanx, Paul
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists