From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Lockdep false positive in sysfs
Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 10:41:14 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120509174114.GE24636@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1205081448590.1164-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Hello,
On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 02:53:11PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 7 May 2012, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> > On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 05:51:52PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > I guess in the end it's a question of balance. Which has more
> > > overhead, adding a few function calls here and there, or adding a new
> > > flags field to every struct attribute?
> >
> > Yes, and there are different types of overheads. I'm happy to trade
> > some runtime memory overhead under debugging mode for lower code
> > complexity. Lock proving is pretty expensive anyway. I don't think
> > there's much point in trying to optimize some bytes from struct
> > attributes.
>
> Okay, then what do you think about this approach? It does seem smaller
> and simpler than the previous attempt.
>
> And I did try to avoid unnecessary bloat; if lockdep isn't being used
> then the extra attribute flag isn't present.
Yeap, looks good to me.
Thanks.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-05-09 17:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-04-25 18:58 Lockdep false positive in sysfs Alan Stern
2012-04-25 21:59 ` Tejun Heo
2012-04-26 8:16 ` Eric W. Biederman
2012-04-26 18:14 ` Alan Stern
2012-04-26 22:17 ` Tejun Heo
2012-04-27 15:57 ` Alan Stern
2012-04-27 16:09 ` Tejun Heo
2012-05-03 21:30 ` Alan Stern
2012-05-04 16:52 ` Tejun Heo
2012-05-04 19:08 ` Alan Stern
2012-05-07 19:46 ` Tejun Heo
2012-05-07 21:51 ` Alan Stern
2012-05-07 21:55 ` Tejun Heo
2012-05-08 18:53 ` Alan Stern
2012-05-09 17:41 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2012-05-09 17:47 ` Alan Stern
2012-05-09 17:48 ` Tejun Heo
2012-04-27 16:27 ` Eric W. Biederman
2012-04-27 18:27 ` Alan Stern
2012-04-27 20:17 ` Tejun Heo
2012-04-27 21:09 ` Eric W. Biederman
2012-04-27 21:16 ` Tejun Heo
2012-04-29 2:00 ` Alan Stern
2012-04-29 2:35 ` Eric W. Biederman
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=20120509174114.GE24636@google.com \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
/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