Re: Lockdep false positive in sysfs

[Alan Stern]

On Wed, 9 May 2012, Tejun Heo wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> 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?

Alan Stern

--
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/