lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [May]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-05-09 20:21    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans