Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 12 Jul 2018 09:37:47 -0400 | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v9 5/7] tracing: Centralize preemptirq tracepoints and unify their usage |
| |
On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 01:38:05 -0700 Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org> wrote:
> So actually with or without the clean up, I don't see any issues with > dropping lockdep_recursing in my tests at the moment. I'm not sure something > else changed between then and now causing the issue to go away. I can include > Peter's clean up in my series though if he's Ok with it since you guys agree > its a good clean up anyway. Would you prefer I did that, and then also > dropped the lockdep_recursing checks? Or should I keep the > lockdep_recursing() checks just to be safe? Do you see cases where you want > irqsoff tracing while lockdep_recursing() is true?
I say rewrite it as per Peter's suggestion. Perhaps even add credit to Peter like:
Cleaned-up-code-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
;-)
And yes, I would recommend dropping the lockdep_recursion() if you can't trigger issues from within your tests. If it shows up later, we can always add it back.
Thanks!
-- Steve
| |