On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 09:56:33 -0700 Joel Fernandes <joe...@google.com> wrote:
> > I don't see the protection in the patches. I will definitely test that > > before pushing it anywhere. > > The protection added by CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING was already there before > my patches. I just moved the code around in patch 1/2, nothing changed > in that patch. I already tested the combination of PROVE_LOCKING > enabled and disabled and several other combinations on your -next > tree. It all compiled fine. Here is my test script FWIW: > (By the way, do you mean that another tree/branch than your -next or > Linus's master has protection removed? If so, could you let me know > which tree/branch?) Using Linus's master is usually fine, but if you want to see what I'm working on, just look at the ftrace/core branch of my linux-trace.git tree on kernel.org. Note, that branch often rebases. My for-next branch does not. Also note, I'm currently looking to pull in Tom Zanussi's hist patch series, and then I'll get to yours afterward. -- Steve
