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    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans