[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171214111817.xnyxgtremfspjk7f@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 12:18:17 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Byungchul Park <max.byungchul.park@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, david@...morbit.com,
willy@...radead.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>, byungchul.park@....com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
oleg@...hat.com
Subject: Re: About the try to remove cross-release feature entirely by Ingo
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:07:11PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> interpreted this as the lockdep maintainers saying, "hey, not my
> fault, it's the subsystem maintainer's fault for not properly
> classifying the locks" --- and thus dumping the responsibility in the
> subsystem maintainers' laps.
Let me clarify that I (as lockdep maintainer) disagree with that
sentiment. I have spend a lot of time over the years staring at random
code trying to fix lockdep splats. Its awesome if corresponding
subsystem maintainers help out and many have, but I very much do not
agree its their problem and their problem alone.
This attitude is one of the biggest issues I have with the crossrelease
stuff and why I don't disagree with Ingo taking it out (for now).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists