[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c20ead65f61a2609a0a80d7692aed0c74886b238.camel@infradead.org>
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2023 17:47:52 +0000
From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] lockdep: add lockdep_cleanup_dead_cpu()
On Sun, 2023-10-29 at 18:33 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 28 2023 at 20:24, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > @@ -24,12 +24,16 @@
> > extern void lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare(void);
> > extern void lockdep_hardirqs_on(unsigned long ip);
> > extern void lockdep_hardirqs_off(unsigned long ip);
> > + extern void lockdep_cleanup_dead_cpu(unsigned int cpu,
> > + struct task_struct *idle);
>
> Lacks a forward declaration of 'struct task_struct'
>
Apparently so; I thought that was fairly much ubiquitous. Was debating
spamming you with a v3 in the space of as many days, or perhaps
revisiting my decision to *pass* the idle task out of kernel/cpu.c.
We could always shift the declaration of idle_thread_get() out to
linux/smpboot.h and let the lockdep code call it directly. You already
reviewed my patch to do that, although it was dropped in the end.
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230321194008.785922-2-usama.arif@bytedance.com/
Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/pkcs7-signature" (5965 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists