Re: [PATCH] SLOW_WORK: Fix the CONFIG_MODULES=n case

[David Howells]

Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> this slow_work_wait_for_items() function should move into the #ifdef 
> block too.

I disagree: I want to keep the variable declaration blocks small; I'd rather
not even put the inline functions in there that I did.  I only did that because
you wanted the #ifdef count reduced.

> In terms of .32 i guess it's OK too and the fix is needed - but i'd really
> not have done even the preceding changes - why again did we need
> /proc/slow_work_rq via 8fba10a

The slow_work_rq debugging interface is not strictly necessary, but it proved a
useful debugging tool.  I emailed Linus before I went on holiday and asked if
he was willing to take these not-strictly-necessary patches on which other
patches were built, or whether he'd prefer me to drop those patches and adjust
the rest.

> and why did it have to happen right before the final kernel?

Because it did.  That's when I finished my set of patches and published them
before going on holiday for a week - and that in turn was related to when I
came up with a better test case.  Sometimes coincidences do happen.

> If then it should have been done in debugfs - we dont need yet another 
> /proc ABI.

Possibly.  That just means we have a debugfs ABI instead of a proc ABI - it
needs maintaining either way.  On the other hand, it can be moved there easily
and the docs changed, and doing so makes a reasonable amount of sense - except
that debugfs isn't normally mounted by at least Fedora for some reason.

David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/