Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 18 Sep 2019 09:06:21 -0700 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] locking: locktorture: Do not include rwlock.h directly |
| |
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 11:24:04PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > On Tue, 17 Sep 2019, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 12:16:14AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > > > On Mon, 16 Sep 2019, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > > > > > > From: Wolfgang M. Reimer <linuxball@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > Including rwlock.h directly will cause kernel builds to fail > > > > if CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT is defined. The correct header file > > > > (rwlock_rt.h OR rwlock.h) will be included by spinlock.h which > > > > is included by locktorture.c anyway. > > > > > > > > Remove the include of linux/rwlock.h. > > > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de> > > > > Applied, thank you! > > > > But does anyone actually run locktorture? > > I do at least. I also know of cases of other folks making use of the > "framework" to test/pound on custom tailored locks -- ie btrfs tree lock. > > I've also seen it in one or two academic papers.
OK, I will hold off on a patch removing it, then. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
| |