From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935547Ab3BTPFr (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Feb 2013 10:05:47 -0500 Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:24924 "EHLO userp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S935383Ab3BTPFp (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Feb 2013 10:05:45 -0500 Message-ID: <5124E628.3020008@oracle.com> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 10:05:12 -0500 From: Sasha Levin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130113 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ingo Molnar CC: peterz@infradead.org, jamie.iles@oracle.com, penberg@kernel.org, acme@ghostprotocols.net, paulus@samba.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, namhyung@kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [liblockdep] Re: [PATCH v2 01/11] liblockdep: remove the need for liblockdep_init References: <1360456781-32462-1-git-send-email-sasha.levin@oracle.com> <20130219075825.GA3741@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20130219075825.GA3741@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Source-IP: acsinet22.oracle.com [141.146.126.238] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 02/19/2013 02:58 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Sasha Levin wrote: > >> Use a constructor in the library instead of making the user manually >> call liblockdep_init(). >> >> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin >> --- >> tools/lib/lockdep/common.c | 2 +- >> tools/lib/lockdep/include/liblockdep/common.h | 1 - >> tools/lib/lockdep/tests/AA.c | 1 - >> tools/lib/lockdep/tests/ABBA.c | 1 - >> tools/lib/lockdep/tests/ABBCCA.c | 1 - >> tools/lib/lockdep/tests/ABBCCDDA.c | 1 - >> tools/lib/lockdep/tests/ABCABC.c | 1 - >> tools/lib/lockdep/tests/ABCDBCDA.c | 1 - >> tools/lib/lockdep/tests/ABCDBDDA.c | 1 - >> tools/lib/lockdep/tests/WW.c | 1 - >> tools/lib/lockdep/tests/unlock_balance.c | 1 - >> tools/lib/lockdep/uinclude/linux/lockdep.h | 1 - >> 12 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 12 deletions(-) > > Note that due to the heavy objections in the kvmtool thread I > have removed the tools/lib/lockdep library and tooling commits > from the locking tree - to be able to merge the other locking > commits upstream. Understood. > I'm pretty sad about this outcome as your code really brought > new development life into lockdep - if you still want to pursue > this approach then you might want to try it via the tools/kvm > tree, or via a separate project. I'm most likely to just fold it into a standalone project since I'm not quite certain the purpose of tools/ at this point. Thanks, Sasha