From: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Subject: Re: BKL: remove extraneous #include <smp_lock.h>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 14:37:35 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4CE4592F.6060104@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimO6CN9wOQco_1bqRmwBS7KfWW1CvumKFuiOWGH@mail.gmail.com>
On 11/17/10 14:23, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>> smp_lock.h was removed from hardirq.h. smp_lock.h provided the function prototype
>> for kernel_locked(). Should source files now #include <linux/smp_lock.h> ?
>> even when not being built for SMP?
>
> Hmm. I think that part was a mistake, but I suspect the simplest fix
> for it is to simply get rid of "kernel_locked()". It has no other
> users than the hardirq.h one, so let's just move it there.
>
> Something like the attached?
>
> NOTE! The reason I _only_ take the CONFIG_LOCK_KERNEL version from
> smp_lock.h is because:
>
> - LOCK_KERNEL is defined by init/Kconfig as "(SMP || PREEMPT) && BKL"
>
> - inside hardirq.h we only use "kernel_locked()" inside "PREEMPT && BKL"
>
> - so "PREEMPT && BKL" implies "LOCK_KERNEL"
>
> - so the !LOCK_KERNEL kernel_locked() case is irrelevant.
>
> unless I did a thinko somewhere.
>
> Does this work in all configurations? TOTALLY UNTESTED! Caveat emptor.
It goes from one use of kernel_locked in *.[ch] to no uses of kernel_locked(),
so yes, it works for me. (I did one previously-failing build with this patch,
and it built with no errors.)
Acked-by: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com>
--
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-11-17 22:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <201011172159.oAHLx1tu001236@hera.kernel.org>
2010-11-17 22:05 ` BKL: remove extraneous #include <smp_lock.h> Randy Dunlap
2010-11-17 22:23 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-11-17 22:37 ` Randy Dunlap [this message]
2010-11-17 22:43 ` Arnd Bergmann
2010-11-18 9:43 ` [build failure] " Ingo Molnar
2010-11-18 15:57 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-11-18 16:02 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-11-18 16:28 ` Randy Dunlap
2010-11-18 19:02 ` Ingo Molnar
2010-11-18 19:04 ` Randy Dunlap
2010-11-18 19:44 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-11-18 19:51 ` 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=4CE4592F.6060104@oracle.com \
--to=randy.dunlap@oracle.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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