On Tue, 29 May 2007 16:16:17 +0200 Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 02:52:50PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > Ensure that all of the lock dependency tracking code is under > > > CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING. This allows us to use the held lock tracking code > > > for other purposes. > > > > There's an awfull lot of ifdefs introduced in this patch, I wonder > > whether it might be better to split up lockdep.c at those boundaries. > > it adds 6 new #ifdefs. There's 35 #ifdefs in page_alloc.c, 44 in > sysctl.c and 64 in sched.c. I'd not call it 'an awful lot', although > certainly it could be reduced. Splitting lockdep.c up would uglify it > well beyond the impact of the 6 #ifdefs, given the amount of glue > needed. > I'm not sure that we need to split lockdep.c, but it's a bit disappointing that the patch didn't (couldn't?) move CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING-only code and data close together so that it can all fall within a single (or at least fewer) ifdefs. (Who came up with the (mis)name CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING, btw? Should have been CONFIG_MIGHT_DISPROVE_LOCKING). - 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/
