Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 14 Aug 2017 20:10:46 +0900 | From | Byungchul Park <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v8 00/14] lockdep: Implement crossrelease feature |
| |
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 12:57:48PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 01:10:19PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > * Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Change from v7 > > > > - rebase on latest tip/sched/core (Jul 26 2017) > > > > - apply peterz's suggestions > > > > - simplify code of crossrelease_{hist/soft/hard}_{start/end} > > > > - exclude a patch avoiding redundant links > > > > - exclude a patch already applied onto the base > > > > > > Ok, it's looking pretty good here now, there's one thing I'd like you to change, > > > please remove all the new Kconfig dependencies: > > > > > > CONFIG_LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE=y > > > CONFIG_LOCKDEP_COMPLETE=y > > > > > > and make it all part of PROVE_LOCKING, like most of the other lock debugging bits. > > > > OK. I will remove them. What about CONFIG_LOCKDEP_PAGELOCK? Should I also > > remove it? > > So I'd only remove the forced _configurability_ - we can still keep those > variables just fine. They modularize the code and they might be useful later on if > for some reason there's some really bad performance aspect that would make one of > these lockdep components to be configured out by default. > > Just make the user interface sane - i.e. only one switch needed to enable full > lockdep. Internal modularization is fine, as long as it's not ugly and the user is > not burdened with it.
Agree.
Thank you, Byungchul
|  |