Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 3 Nov 2011 06:29:42 -0700 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 17/28] rcu: Make srcu_read_lock_held() call common lockdep-enabled function |
| |
On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 12:14:20PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 08:48:54PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 01:30:38PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> > > > > > > A common debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() function is used to check whether > > > RCU lockdep splats should be reported, but srcu_read_lock() does not > > > use it. This commit therefore brings srcu_read_lock_held() up to date. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> > > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > > Just how signed off does this patch need to be? ;)
If you have sufficient patience to scroll past the Signed-off-by's to see the patch, then there clearly are not enough. ;-)
> Dunno but I feel uncomfortable now with that strange feeling I'm walking > on the street with two Paul holding my hand on each side.
I did catch one of these, but missed the other. Here is the history:
o Paul wrote the patch.
o Frederic reworked the patches that this one depended on, and then resent the patch.
o Paul did "git am -s" on the series that Frederic sent, which added the extra Signed-off-by.
It is not clear to me what the Signed-off-by chain should look like in this case. My default action would be to remove my second Signed-off-by.
Thanx, Paul
| |