lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Nov]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 17/28] rcu: Make srcu_read_lock_held() call common lockdep-enabled function
    On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 12:14:20PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
    > On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 08:48:54PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
    > > On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 01:30:38PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
    > > > From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
    > > >
    > > > A common debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() function is used to check whether
    > > > RCU lockdep splats should be reported, but srcu_read_lock() does not
    > > > use it. This commit therefore brings srcu_read_lock_held() up to date.
    > > >
    > > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
    > > > Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
    > > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
    > >
    > > Just how signed off does this patch need to be? ;)

    If you have sufficient patience to scroll past the Signed-off-by's
    to see the patch, then there clearly are not enough. ;-)

    > Dunno but I feel uncomfortable now with that strange feeling I'm walking
    > on the street with two Paul holding my hand on each side.

    I did catch one of these, but missed the other. Here is the history:

    o Paul wrote the patch.

    o Frederic reworked the patches that this one depended on,
    and then resent the patch.

    o Paul did "git am -s" on the series that Frederic sent,
    which added the extra Signed-off-by.

    It is not clear to me what the Signed-off-by chain should look like in
    this case. My default action would be to remove my second Signed-off-by.

    Thanx, Paul



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-11-03 14:33    [W:0.050 / U:128.004 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site