[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180730171723.GA31541@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 19:17:23 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, jsperbeck@...gle.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, wsa@...-dreams.de, dave@...olabs.net,
dpf@...gle.com, pombredanne@...b.com, deepadinamani@...gle.com,
peterz@...radead.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
will.deacon@....com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, hpa@...or.com,
linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:locking/urgent] i2c/mux, locking/core: Annotate the nested
rt_mutex usage
* Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se> wrote:
> On 2018-07-25 16:19, tip-bot for Peter Rosin wrote:
> > Commit-ID: 7b94ea50514d1a0dc94f02723b603c27bc0ea597
> > Gitweb: https://git.kernel.org/tip/7b94ea50514d1a0dc94f02723b603c27bc0ea597
> > Author: Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>
> > AuthorDate: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 10:39:14 +0200
> > Committer: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
> > CommitDate: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 11:22:20 +0200
> >
> > i2c/mux, locking/core: Annotate the nested rt_mutex usage
>
> Hi!
>
> I'm a bit curious as to why the subject line was changed on this patch?
>
> (it was "[PATCH v4 2/2] i2c: mux: annotate the nested rt_mutex usage")
>
> I thought the subject as I wrote it was just perfect. Was it so bad that it
> had to be edited?
It wasn't "bad", I improved it to signal that it has a new locking API dependency,
in particular that's it's dependent on this commit:
62cedf3e60af: locking/rtmutex: Allow specifying a subclass for nested locking
This also clarified it why this i2c commit is in locking/urgent.
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists