Re: [patch v2 2/5] rtmutex: Cleanup deadlock detector debug logic

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Wed, 4 Jun 2014, Steven Rostedt wrote:

> On Wed, 4 Jun 2014 15:17:35 +0200 (CEST)
> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
> > > > +static int rt_mutex_cond_detect_deadlock(struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter,
> > > > +					 enum rtmutex_chainwalk detect)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	return debug_rt_mutex_detect_deadlock(waiter, detect);
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +/*
> > > 
> > > I'm curious to why you created this wrapper function that adds no
> > > value? Why not call debug_rt_mutex_detect_deadlock() directly?
> > 
> > debug_rt_mutex_detect_deadlock() smells like a magic debug feature,
> > while rt_mutex_cond_detect_deadlock() clearly says; It's
> > conditional.
> 
> Which brings up the next obvious question. Um, why not just rename
> debug_rt_mutex_detect_deadlock() to rt_mutex_cond_detect_deadlock()?

Because I wanted to keep the cond function in the main source file
along with the comments instead of having two of the same in the
headers.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/