mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Hitoshi Mitake <mitake@dcl.info.waseda.ac.jp>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Jason Baron <jbaron@redhat.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, h.mitake@gmail.com,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 00/11] lock monitor: Separate features related to lock
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2010 16:56:11 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4BB8461B.3060502@dcl.info.waseda.ac.jp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1269358360.5109.88.camel@twins>

On 03/24/10 00:32, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
 > On Sat, 2010-03-20 at 17:23 +0900, Hitoshi Mitake wrote:
 >> In lockdep, held_locks of task_struct are accessed this arithmetical way
 >>                  prev = curr->held_locks + i;
 >> Of course this is valid way, but I feel it is more simple and 
natural way
 >>                  prev = curr->held_locks[i];
 >>
 >
 > The latter is a type mis-match, an equivalent expression would be:
 >     &curr->held_locks[i];
 >

Yeah, sorry.

And is there reason that the statement is not
     &curr->held_locks[i];
but
     prev = curr->held_locks + i;
?

Of course, curr->held_locks + i style statement causes no problem.
But I had a little interest in the selection of style.
Do you know the reason?

Thanks,
	Hitoshi

  reply	other threads:[~2010-04-04  7:56 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-03-14 10:38 Hitoshi Mitake
2010-03-14 10:38 ` [PATCH RFC 01/11] lock monitor: New subsystem for lock event hooking Hitoshi Mitake
2010-03-14 10:38 ` [PATCH RFC 02/11] Adopt lockdep to lock monitor Hitoshi Mitake
2010-03-14 10:38 ` [PATCH RFC 03/11] Adopt spinlock " Hitoshi Mitake
2010-03-14 10:38 ` [PATCH RFC 04/11] Adopt rwlock " Hitoshi Mitake
2010-03-14 10:38 ` [PATCH RFC 05/11] Adopt arch dependent rwsem " Hitoshi Mitake
2010-03-14 10:38 ` [PATCH RFC 06/11] Adopt rwsem of x86 " Hitoshi Mitake
2010-03-14 10:38 ` [PATCH RFC 07/11] Adopt the way of initializing semaphore " Hitoshi Mitake
2010-03-14 10:38 ` [PATCH RFC 08/11] Adopt mutex " Hitoshi Mitake
2010-03-14 10:38 ` [PATCH RFC 09/11] Adopt rcu_read_lock() " Hitoshi Mitake
2010-03-14 10:38 ` [PATCH RFC 10/11] Adopt kernel/sched.c " Hitoshi Mitake
2010-03-14 10:38 ` [PATCH RFC 11/11] Very dirty temporal solution for testing " Hitoshi Mitake
2010-03-14 18:13 ` [PATCH RFC 00/11] lock monitor: Separate features related to lock Peter Zijlstra
2010-03-17  1:32   ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-03-17  7:30     ` Hitoshi Mitake
2010-03-17 15:39       ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-03-18  5:49         ` Hitoshi Mitake
2010-03-18 20:30           ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-03-20  5:51             ` Hitoshi Mitake
2010-03-23 15:45         ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-03-17  9:52     ` Ingo Molnar
2010-03-17 13:59       ` Jason Baron
2010-03-18  5:59       ` Hitoshi Mitake
2010-03-18 21:16         ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-03-19  1:08           ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-03-19  1:23             ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-03-19  1:36               ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-03-19  2:27                 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-03-19  2:40                   ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-03-19  3:06                     ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-03-19 12:56                       ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-03-19 16:00                         ` Jason Baron
2010-03-20  4:51                           ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-03-20  4:46                         ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-03-20  5:56           ` Hitoshi Mitake
2010-03-20  8:23             ` Hitoshi Mitake
2010-03-21  9:49               ` Hitoshi Mitake
2010-03-23 15:32               ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-04  7:56                 ` Hitoshi Mitake [this message]
2010-03-17  1:47 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-03-17  7:33   ` Hitoshi Mitake
2010-03-17  9:50     ` Ingo Molnar

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=4BB8461B.3060502@dcl.info.waseda.ac.jp \
    --to=mitake@dcl.info.waseda.ac.jp \
    --cc=acme@redhat.com \
    --cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
    --cc=h.mitake@gmail.com \
    --cc=jbaron@redhat.com \
    --cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=paulus@samba.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    /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®