Re: [PATCH] lock stat for -rt 2.6.20-rc2-rt2.2.lock_stat.patch

[Bill Huey (hui) <billh@gnuppy.monkey.org>]

On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 12:31:15PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Bill Huey <billh@gnuppy.monkey.org> wrote:
> 
> > Patch here:
> > 
> > 	http://mmlinux.sourceforge.net/public/patch-2.6.20-rc2-rt2.2.lock_stat.patch
> 
> hm, most of the review feedback i gave has not been addressed in the 
> patch above. So i did it myself: find below various fixups for problems 
> i outlined plus for a few other problems as well (ontop of 
> 2.3.lock_stat).

Sorry, I've been siliently keeping your suggested change in my private
repo without announcing it to the world. I'll reply to the old email in
another message at length.

	http://mmlinux.sourceforge.net/public/patch-2.6.20-rc2-rt2.4.lock_stat.patch

> While it's now markedly better it's still not quite mergeable, for 
> example the build fails quite spectacularly if LOCK_STAT is disabled in 
> the .config.

I'll look into it. I've been focused on clean up and a couple of other
things regard the stability of this patch. Making small changes in it
tends to make the kernel crash hard and I suspect that it's an interaction
problem with lockdep and that I need to turn lockdep off when hitting
"lock stats" locks. I'm going to move to "__raw_..." locks...

Meanwhile please wait until I hand interpret and merge your changes to an
older patch into my latest stuff. If it's takes too long, I suggest keeping
out of the tree for a bit until I finish this round unless something is
pressing for this to happen now like a mass change to the spinlock macros
or something. I stalled a bit trying to get Peter Zijlstra an extra feature.

> Also, it would be nice to replace those #ifdef CONFIG_LOCK_STAT changes 
> in rtmutex.c with some nice inline functions that do nothing on 
> !CONFIG_LOCK_STAT.

I'll look into it. Not sure what your choice in style is here and I'm
open to suggestions. I'm also interested in a reduction of #define
identifier length if you or somebody else has some kind of good convention
to suggest.

> but in general i'm positive about the direction this is heading, it just 
> needs more work.

Sorry, for the lag. Trying to juggle this and the current demands of my
employeer contributed to this lag unfortunately.

bill