lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Dec]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [mmotm and linux-next][PATCH] irq: enclose irq_desc_lock_class in CONFIG_LOCKDEP

* KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:

> > >> 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.
> >
> > it seems make much sense. I'll test your idea tommorow.
>
> Ingo, you are right. I confirmed your idea works well.
>
>
> I tested following ten pattern.
>
> o handle.c can compile without any warnings?
>
> SPARSE_IRQ TRACE_IRQ LOCKDEP
> ------------------------------------------
> n n n
> Y n n
> n Y n
> n n Y
> Y Y n
> N Y Y
> Y n Y
> Y Y Y
>
>
> o builded kernel works well? (tested on x86_64)
>
> SPARSE_IRQ TRACE_IRQ LOCKDEP
> ------------------------------------------
> n n n
> Y Y Y
>
>
> ==
> Subject: [PATCH] irq: remove unnecessary ifdef

Applied to tip/irq/sparseirq, thanks!

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-12-18 14:39    [W:0.039 / U:0.460 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site