lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Aug]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-08-14 13:12    [W:0.104 / U:2.108 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site