Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Wed, 9 May 2012 13:47:34 -0400 (EDT) | | From | Alan Stern <> | | Subject | Re: Lockdep false positive in sysfs |
| |
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
|  |