Re: Lockdep false positive in sysfs
From: Alan Stern
Date: Wed May 09 2012 - 13:47:31 EST
On Wed, 9 May 2012, Tejun Heo wrote:
> 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.
Unless there are any objections from Eric or Peter in the next few
days, I'll submit it. Can I add your Acked-by?
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/