* Sasha Levin <sasha.le...@oracle.com> wrote:
> On 02/19/2013 02:58 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Sasha Levin <sasha.le...@oracle.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Use a constructor in the library instead of making the user manually
> >> call liblockdep_init().
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sasha.le...@oracle.com>
> >> ---
> >> 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.
You could also tempt Linus with a standalone pull request -
altough at this point I'm not sure he'd take it.
Sharing the source code between user-space and kernel space
makes quite a bit of sense, and copying files, while it works,
just encourages needless forking. The impact of your changes on
kernel/lockdep.c was minimal:
47dd80e801c3 lockdep: Be nice about building from userspace
kernel/lockdep.c | 4 ++++
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
So I don't see any substantial 'drag' or downside on the kernel
lockdep subsystem - and I see a lot of upsides from exposing
user-space to the lockdep code.
Have you tried to check the locking of something more complex,
such as Firefox? (assuming it uses pthread mutexes and rwlocks -
I'm not sure about that.)
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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/
