On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 12:19:40PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> your patch looks pretty ok to me in principle. A couple of suggestions
> to make it more mergable:
>
> - instead of BUG_ON()s please use DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON() and make sure
> the code is never entered again if one assertion has been triggered.
> Pass down a return result of '0' to signal failure. See
> kernel/lockdep.c about how to do this. One thing we dont need are
> bugs in instrumentation bringing down a machine.
I'm using a non-fatal error checking instead of BUG_ON. BUG_ON was a more
aggressive way that I use to find problem initiallly.
> - remove dead (#if 0) code
Done.
> - Documentation/CodingStyle compliance - the code is not ugly per se
> but still looks a bit 'alien' - please try to make it look Linuxish,
> if i apply this we'll probably stick with it forever. This is the
> major reason i havent applied it yet.
I reformatted most of the patch to be 80 column limited. I simplified a
number of names, but I'm open to suggestions and patches to how to go
about this. Much of this code was a style experiment, but now I have to
make this more mergable.
> - the xfs/wrap_lock change looks bogus - the lock is initialized
> already. What am i missing?
Correct. This has been removed.
I've applied Daniel Walker's changes as well.
Patch here:
http://mmlinux.sourceforge.net/public/patch-2.6.20-rc2-rt2.2.lock_stat.patch
bill
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
