Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:36:23 +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:
> > >> 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
| |