From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf0-f199.google.com (mail-pf0-f199.google.com [209.85.192.199]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA7106B02C3 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 21:32:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pf0-f199.google.com with SMTP id k3so79923516pfc.0 for ; Wed, 09 Aug 2017 18:32:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lgeamrelo13.lge.com (LGEAMRELO13.lge.com. [156.147.23.53]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 92si3583741pli.551.2017.08.09.18.32.08 for ; Wed, 09 Aug 2017 18:32:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 10:30:54 +0900 From: Byungchul Park Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 05/14] lockdep: Implement crossrelease feature Message-ID: <20170810013054.GW20323@X58A-UD3R> References: <1502089981-21272-1-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com> <1502089981-21272-6-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com> <20170809140535.aerk2ivnf4kv2mgf@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170809140535.aerk2ivnf4kv2mgf@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: mingo@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, walken@google.com, boqun.feng@gmail.com, kirill@shutemov.name, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, willy@infradead.org, npiggin@gmail.com, kernel-team@lge.com On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 04:05:35PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 04:12:52PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > > diff --git a/include/linux/lockdep.h b/include/linux/lockdep.h > > index fffe49f..0c8a1b8 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/lockdep.h > > +++ b/include/linux/lockdep.h > > @@ -467,6 +520,49 @@ static inline void lockdep_on(void) > > > > #endif /* !LOCKDEP */ > > > > +enum context_t { > > + HARD, > > + SOFT, > > + PROC, > > + CONTEXT_NR, > > +}; > > Since this is the global namespace and those being somewhat generic > names, I've renamed the lot: > > +enum xhlock_context_t { > + XHLOCK_HARD, > + XHLOCK_SOFT, > + XHLOCK_PROC, > + XHLOCK_NR, > +}; I like it. Thank you. With a little feedback, it rather makes us a bit confused between XHLOCK_NR and MAX_XHLOCK_NR. what about the following? +enum xhlock_context_t { + XHLOCK_HARD, + XHLOCK_SOFT, + XHLOCK_PROC, + XHLOCK_CXT_NR, +}; But it's trivial. I like yours, too. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org