Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 16 Dec 2008 13:18:15 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [mmotm and linux-next][PATCH] irq: enclose irq_desc_lock_class in CONFIG_LOCKDEP |
| |
* KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> >> > actually, this breaks the build on !SPARSEIRQ because we will use that > >> > class in the non-sparseirq case. So we've converted a build warning to > >> > a build failure ;-) > >> > >> Please give me your .config and tell me your arch. my ia64 box (ia64 is > >> !SPARSEIRQ) can build the akpm patch. > > > > The expected build failure is obvious from reading the code: > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_TRACE_IRQFLAGS > > void early_init_irq_lock_class(void) > > { > > #ifndef CONFIG_SPARSE_IRQ > > struct irq_desc *desc; > > int i; > > > > for_each_irq_desc(i, desc) { > > if (!desc) > > continue; > > > > lockdep_set_class(&desc->lock, &irq_desc_lock_class); > > > > Note that it's an #ifndef sparseirq, not an #ifdef sparseirq condition. > > I see. thanks. > It seems my first proposal is better. > > or, following #ifdef ? > > #if defined(CONFIG_SPARSE_IRQ) || defined(CONFIG_TRACE_IRQFLAGS) > > /* > * lockdep: we want to handle all irq_desc locks as a single lock-class: > */ > static struct lock_class_key irq_desc_lock_class;
instead of increasing the #ifdef jungle, how about removing some? For example is this distinction:
> > #ifndef CONFIG_SPARSE_IRQ
really needed? We should use symmetric lock class annotations, regardless of how irq_desc[] is laid out.
Ingo
| |