lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Sep]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 4/4] lockdep: Fix workqueue crossrelease annotation
On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 10:30:32AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 06:38:52PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 10:51:48PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 9:38 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 07:16:29PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> It would be gone _only_ at the time the history overrun, and then it
> > > >> will be built again. So, you are wrong.
> > >
> > > s/it will be built again/the acquisition will be added into the xhlock
> > > array again/
> > >
> > > Now, better to understand?
> >
> > No, I still don't get it. How are we ever going to get the workqueue
> > thread setup code back after its spooled out?
> >
> > > > How will it ever be build again? You only ever spawn the worker thread
> > > > _ONCE_, then it runs lots and lots of works.
> > > >
> > > > We _could_ go fix it, but I really don't see it being worth the time and
> > >
> > > We don't need to fix it spending time and effort. Just *revert* all your
> > > wrong patches.
> >
> > And get tangled up with the workqueue annotation again, no thanks.
> > Having the first few works see the thread setup isn't worth it.
> >
> > And your work_id annotation had the same problem.
>
> I keep asking you for an example because I really understand you.

I keep asking you for an example because I really want to understand you.

>
> Fix my problematic example with your patches,
>
> or,
>
> Show me a problematic scenario with my original code, you expect.
>
> Whatever, it would be helpful to understand you.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-09-04 04:09    [W:0.101 / U:9.924 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site