From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>,
Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Subject: Re: [patch v2 2/5] rtmutex: Cleanup deadlock detector debug logic
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 15:54:40 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140604155440.7b137ee0@gandalf.local.home> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1406041515470.3319@nanos>
On Wed, 4 Jun 2014 15:17:35 +0200 (CEST)
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> > > +static int rt_mutex_cond_detect_deadlock(struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter,
> > > + enum rtmutex_chainwalk detect)
> > > +{
> > > + return debug_rt_mutex_detect_deadlock(waiter, detect);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +/*
> >
> > I'm curious to why you created this wrapper function that adds no
> > value? Why not call debug_rt_mutex_detect_deadlock() directly?
>
> debug_rt_mutex_detect_deadlock() smells like a magic debug feature,
> while rt_mutex_cond_detect_deadlock() clearly says; It's
> conditional.
Which brings up the next obvious question. Um, why not just rename
debug_rt_mutex_detect_deadlock() to rt_mutex_cond_detect_deadlock()?
-- Steve
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-06-04 19:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-05-31 15:57 [patch v2 0/5] rtmutex: Code clarification and optimization Thomas Gleixner
2014-05-31 15:57 ` [patch v2 1/5] rtmutex: Remove builtin tester Thomas Gleixner
2014-05-31 19:55 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-05-31 15:57 ` [patch v2 2/5] rtmutex: Cleanup deadlock detector debug logic Thomas Gleixner
2014-05-31 20:00 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-06-04 13:17 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-06-04 19:54 ` Steven Rostedt [this message]
2014-06-04 19:56 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-05-31 15:57 ` [patch v2 3/5] rtmutex: Confine deadlock logic to futex Thomas Gleixner
2014-05-31 19:54 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-05-31 20:35 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-05-31 15:57 ` [patch v2 4/5] rtmutex: Clarify the lock chain walk Thomas Gleixner
2014-05-31 20:03 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-05-31 15:57 ` [patch v2 5/5] rtmutex: Avoid pointless requeueing in the deadlock detection " Thomas Gleixner
2014-06-02 14:14 ` Steven Rostedt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140604155440.7b137ee0@gandalf.local.home \
--to=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=jason.low2@hp.com \
--cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®