From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753162Ab1KCN7H (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Nov 2011 09:59:07 -0400 Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.125]:60629 "EHLO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750862Ab1KCN7G (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Nov 2011 09:59:06 -0400 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=PzmnriOiyqYdyw8suerSEFMr8oy2Ua58JL+Rk7iuDKE= c=1 sm=0 a=FTm68WEYJR0A:10 a=5SG0PmZfjMsA:10 a=Q9fys5e9bTEA:10 a=ZycB6UtQUfgMyuk2+PxD7w==:17 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=VnNF1IyMAAAA:8 a=FjwO-MG0ZwBFkjGk7h0A:9 a=oVlTJ8sYnOpNqi-Jr-8A:7 a=PUjeQqilurYA:10 a=MSl-tDqOz04A:10 a=ZycB6UtQUfgMyuk2+PxD7w==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Originating-IP: 74.67.80.29 Message-ID: <1320328742.27370.9.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 17/28] rcu: Make srcu_read_lock_held() call common lockdep-enabled function From: Steven Rostedt To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: Frederic Weisbecker , Josh Triplett , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca, niv@us.ibm.com, tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, dhowells@redhat.com, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, darren@dvhart.com, patches@linaro.org Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 09:59:02 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20111103132942.GY2287@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20111102203017.GA3830@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1320265849-5744-17-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20111103034854.GD2042@leaf> <20111103111413.GC8198@somewhere.redhat.com> <20111103132942.GY2287@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.0.3-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2011-11-03 at 06:29 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 12:14:20PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 08:48:54PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 01:30:38PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > From: Frederic Weisbecker > > > > > > > > A common debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() function is used to check whether > > > > RCU lockdep splats should be reported, but srcu_read_lock() does not > > > > use it. This commit therefore brings srcu_read_lock_held() up to date. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney > > > > Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker > > > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney > > > > > > Just how signed off does this patch need to be? ;) > > If you have sufficient patience to scroll past the Signed-off-by's > to see the patch, then there clearly are not enough. ;-) > > > Dunno but I feel uncomfortable now with that strange feeling I'm walking > > on the street with two Paul holding my hand on each side. > > I did catch one of these, but missed the other. Here is the history: > > o Paul wrote the patch. > > o Frederic reworked the patches that this one depended on, > and then resent the patch. > > o Paul did "git am -s" on the series that Frederic sent, > which added the extra Signed-off-by. > > It is not clear to me what the Signed-off-by chain should look like in > this case. My default action would be to remove my second Signed-off-by. The author should be you (change the From: to you not Frederic), and then the first SoB would be Frederic, and yours at the end as you committed it. I would also state in the change log what Frederic did to the original patch. -- Steve