Re: Lockdep false positive in sysfs

From: Tejun Heo
Date: Wed May 09 2012 - 13:41:21 EST


On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 02:53:11PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 7 May 2012, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 05:51:52PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > I guess in the end it's a question of balance. Which has more
> > > overhead, adding a few function calls here and there, or adding a new
> > > flags field to every struct attribute?
> >
> > Yes, and there are different types of overheads. I'm happy to trade
> > some runtime memory overhead under debugging mode for lower code
> > complexity. Lock proving is pretty expensive anyway. I don't think
> > there's much point in trying to optimize some bytes from struct
> > attributes.
> Okay, then what do you think about this approach? It does seem smaller
> and simpler than the previous attempt.
> And I did try to avoid unnecessary bloat; if lockdep isn't being used
> then the extra attribute flag isn't present.

Yeap, looks good to me.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at