Re: [PATCH] locking: locktorture: Do not include rwlock.h directly

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>]

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