Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 2 Jan 2007 23:41:24 -0800 | Subject | [PATCH] lock stat for -rt 2.6.20-rc2-rt2.2.lock_stat.patch | From | Bill Huey (hui) <> |
| |
On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 12:19:40PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > your patch looks pretty ok to me in principle. A couple of suggestions > to make it more mergable: > > - instead of BUG_ON()s please use DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON() and make sure > the code is never entered again if one assertion has been triggered. > Pass down a return result of '0' to signal failure. See > kernel/lockdep.c about how to do this. One thing we dont need are > bugs in instrumentation bringing down a machine.
I'm using a non-fatal error checking instead of BUG_ON. BUG_ON was a more aggressive way that I use to find problem initiallly.
> - remove dead (#if 0) code
Done.
> - Documentation/CodingStyle compliance - the code is not ugly per se > but still looks a bit 'alien' - please try to make it look Linuxish, > if i apply this we'll probably stick with it forever. This is the > major reason i havent applied it yet.
I reformatted most of the patch to be 80 column limited. I simplified a number of names, but I'm open to suggestions and patches to how to go about this. Much of this code was a style experiment, but now I have to make this more mergable.
> - the xfs/wrap_lock change looks bogus - the lock is initialized > already. What am i missing?
Correct. This has been removed.
I've applied Daniel Walker's changes as well.
Patch here:
http://mmlinux.sourceforge.net/public/patch-2.6.20-rc2-rt2.2.lock_stat.patch
bill
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |