Re: [PATCH 1/4] [RFC] net: Explicitly initialize u64_stats_sync structures for lockdep

2013-10-23 Thread Julian Anastasov
Hello, On Wed, 23 Oct 2013, John Stultz wrote: > Just wanted to ping folks on this patch, as I haven't gotten any feedback. > > As its a prereq for the seqcount lockdep support, I'd like to get it > queued/merged, but I'm not sure what the right maintainer path or > approach should be.

Re: [PATCH 1/4] [RFC] net: Explicitly initialize u64_stats_sync structures for lockdep

2013-10-23 Thread John Stultz
On 10/07/2013 03:51 PM, John Stultz wrote: > In order to enable lockdep on seqcount/seqlock structures, we > must explicitly initialize any locks. > > The u64_stats_sync structure, uses a seqcount, and thus we need > to introduce a u64_stats_init() function and use it to initialize > the structure.

[PATCH 1/4] [RFC] net: Explicitly initialize u64_stats_sync structures for lockdep

2013-10-07 Thread John Stultz
In order to enable lockdep on seqcount/seqlock structures, we must explicitly initialize any locks. The u64_stats_sync structure, uses a seqcount, and thus we need to introduce a u64_stats_init() function and use it to initialize the structure. This unfortunately adds a lot of fairly trivial init

Re: [PATCH 1/4] [RFC] net: Explicitly initialize u64_stats_sync structures for lockdep

2013-09-27 Thread Eric Dumazet
On Fri, 2013-09-27 at 07:44 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > C cannot pass along symbolic names, unfortunately, so we are stuck with > 1970's tech and the C preprocessor. > Yes, I realized that a bit too late. > There's a way to make such macros look a tiny bit more structured and thus > be more p

Re: [PATCH 1/4] [RFC] net: Explicitly initialize u64_stats_sync structures for lockdep

2013-09-26 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Thu, 2013-09-26 at 11:34 -0700, John Stultz wrote: > > In order to enable lockdep on seqcount/seqlock structures, we > > must explicitly initialize any locks. > > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/u64_stats_sync.h b/include/linux/u64_stats_sync.h > > index 8da8c4e..c4

Re: [PATCH 1/4] [RFC] net: Explicitly initialize u64_stats_sync structures for lockdep

2013-09-26 Thread Eric Dumazet
On Thu, 2013-09-26 at 12:39 -0700, John Stultz wrote: > > No objection, though I worry that will obscure the lockdep key name, > > causing all the u64_stat_sync locks to appear the same. > > > > I'll give it a quick shot to see if the compiler inlines it well enough > > to preserve the name. > Yea

Re: [PATCH 1/4] [RFC] net: Explicitly initialize u64_stats_sync structures for lockdep

2013-09-26 Thread John Stultz
On 09/26/2013 12:34 PM, John Stultz wrote: > On 09/26/2013 12:26 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote: >> On Thu, 2013-09-26 at 11:34 -0700, John Stultz wrote: >>> In order to enable lockdep on seqcount/seqlock structures, we >>> must explicitly initialize any locks. >>> >>> diff --git a/include/linux/u64_stats_

Re: [PATCH 1/4] [RFC] net: Explicitly initialize u64_stats_sync structures for lockdep

2013-09-26 Thread John Stultz
On 09/26/2013 12:26 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Thu, 2013-09-26 at 11:34 -0700, John Stultz wrote: >> In order to enable lockdep on seqcount/seqlock structures, we >> must explicitly initialize any locks. >> >> diff --git a/include/linux/u64_stats_sync.h b/include/linux/u64_stats_sync.h >> index 8

Re: [PATCH 1/4] [RFC] net: Explicitly initialize u64_stats_sync structures for lockdep

2013-09-26 Thread Eric Dumazet
On Thu, 2013-09-26 at 11:34 -0700, John Stultz wrote: > In order to enable lockdep on seqcount/seqlock structures, we > must explicitly initialize any locks. > > diff --git a/include/linux/u64_stats_sync.h b/include/linux/u64_stats_sync.h > index 8da8c4e..c450e11 100644 > --- a/include/linux/u64_

[PATCH 1/4] [RFC] net: Explicitly initialize u64_stats_sync structures for lockdep

2013-09-26 Thread John Stultz
In order to enable lockdep on seqcount/seqlock structures, we must explicitly initialize any locks. The u64_stats_sync structure, uses a seqcount, and thus we need to introduce a u64_stats_init() function and use it to initialize the structure. This unfortunately adds a lot of fairly trivial init