From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751075AbdE1JLd (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 May 2017 05:11:33 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f49.google.com ([74.125.82.49]:34022 "EHLO mail-wm0-f49.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751039AbdE1JLc (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 May 2017 05:11:32 -0400 Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 11:11:28 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: "Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin)" Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "ben@decadent.org.uk" , "a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl" , "tglx@linutronix.de" Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/21] liblockdep fixes for v4.12 Message-ID: <20170528091128.wv5fufpijbs36gkf@gmail.com> References: <20170525130005.5947-1-alexander.levin@verizon.com> <20170526065252.pj2ifnbb2wgosxfa@gmail.com> <20170526105930.nghwzltbdh4sk7mg@sasha-lappy> <20170526112151.ssvrtq6zwerxuvgo@gmail.com> <20170526114320.ifwgj44xrfnuxyo3@sasha-lappy> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170526114320.ifwgj44xrfnuxyo3@sasha-lappy> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin) wrote: > On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 01:21:51PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin) wrote: > > > > > Right, and as you can see from this patchset where we added to > > > tools/include/ when needed and removed from lib/lockdep/uinclude, > > > liblockdep is slowly creeping the "right" way. > > > > > > perf, like liblockdep, didn't finish the switch to exclusively use > > > tools/include/ yet. > > > > > > I can put more work into getting it done over the next few releases, > > > but it's not something I see as a critical fix for the upcoming > > > release. > > > > Since liblockdep was broken for an extended period of time I'd really > > like to see this fixed before I apply any more patches. > > What does the build breakage has to do with converting the way we use headers? > There's no broken functionality as far as I can tell, so why is the header thing > defined as a "fix" to begin with? liblockdep was essentially build-broken for almost a year. I worry about and question liblockdep's general maintainability and as a maintainer of lockdep I can see only two options going forward: either it's cleaned up for good (going beyond what is needed to fix the build failures and warnings), or we remove it (with the option of reintroducing it if/when it's clean enough). I.e. the quality bar has increased. > I also don't see a single tools/ project to exclusively use tools/include at > this point. > > Would you rather keep liblockdep broken for the next couple of months until this > is sorted? I really doubt I could get something (+ enough time to soak in -next) > for v4.13, so we're looking at v4.14 at the earliest. No, if it does not improve then I'd rather remove it, and re-add it at a later date if/when it's clean enough. Thanks, Ingo