Re: Lockdep false positive in sysfs

[Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>]

On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 01:47:34PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 9 May 2012, Tejun Heo wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Unless there are any objections from Eric or Peter in the next few
> days, I'll submit it.  Can I add your Acked-by?

Sure.

Thanks for the persistence.

-- 
tejun