[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAM9d7cgdauVW+HdpQS_FNG4e3SRR1JP74N1Z-SX+hXZ-yDM5DQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2022 12:29:32 -0800
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Radoslaw Burny <rburny@...gle.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/12] timer: Protect lockdep functions with #ifdef
Hi Steve,
On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 11:36 AM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 8 Feb 2022 10:41:59 -0800
> Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> > With upcoming lock tracepoints config, it'd define some of lockdep
> > functions without enabling CONFIG_LOCKDEP actually. The existing code
> > assumes those functions will be removed by the preprocessor but it's
> > not the case anymore. Let's protect the code with #ifdef's explicitly.
>
> I wonder if it would be cleaner to have another macro name for these
> locations to keep out the ugly #ifdef in the code.
>
> lockdep_init_map_raw() ?
Yeah, I like that.. Then I also need to add the _raw variants
for acquire, release and so on. Is that ok?
Thanks,
Namhyung
Powered by blists - more mailing lists