On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 02:19:15PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 09:56:06AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 08:57:48AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 07:58:10AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: > > > > This patch seems reasonable to me, but the repeated use of #if > > > > defined(CONFIG_SMP) || defined(CONFIG_RCU_TRACE) seems somewhat > > > > annoying, and fragile if you ever decide to change the conditions. How > > > > about defining an appropriate symbol in Kconfig for stall warnings, and > > > > using that? > > > > > > But I only just removed the config option for SMP RCU stall warnings. ;-) > > > > > > But I must agree that "defined(CONFIG_SMP) || defined(CONFIG_RCU_TRACE)" > > > is a bit obscure. The rationale is that RCU stall warnings are > > > unconditionally enabled in SMP kernels, but don't want to be in > > > TINY_RCU kernels due to size constraints. I therefore put it under > > > CONFIG_RCU_TRACE, which also contains other TINY_RCU debugging-style > > > options. Would adding a comment to this effect help? > > > > I understand the rationale; I just think it would become clearer if you > > added an internal-only Kconfig symbol selected in both cases and change > > the conditionals to use that. > > My concern was that this would confuse people into thinking that the > code under those #ifdefs was all the stall-warning code that there was. > > I suppose this could be forestalled with a suitably clever name... > CONFIG_RCU_CPU_STALL_TINY_TOO? Better names?
How about CONFIG_RCU_STALL_COMMON, with associated help text saying "include the stall-detection code common to both rcutree and rcutiny"? - Josh Triplett -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
