Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 12:33:07 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Colin Cross <ccross@android.com>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>,
        Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@chromium.org>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul@pwsan.com>, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, linux-nfs <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux PM list <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Ben Chan <benchan@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] lockdep: check that no locks held at freeze time
Message-ID: <20130506193307.GD800@mtj.dyndns.org>
References: <1367615050-3894-1-git-send-email-ccross@android.com>
 <1367615050-3894-2-git-send-email-ccross@android.com>
 <20130506190115.GB800@mtj.dyndns.org>
 <CAMbhsRRcfpXBGAPThjrmB_judgn85TioR_6A6qwh_fBQCent7A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAMbhsRRcfpXBGAPThjrmB_judgn85TioR_6A6qwh_fBQCent7A@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1210
Lines: 29

Hello,

On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 12:30:19PM -0700, Colin Cross wrote:
> > I don't care about %current change, especially given that it's a debug
> > interface but that really should be a separate patch, so please split
> > it out if you want it (and I think we want it).
> 
> The current change was requested by akpm and was part of the original
> patch.  Is it really worth confusing the history of this patch even
> more, applying it the first time, reverting it, and then applying it
> again in two parts?

I don't know.  The patch seems confusing to me.  It really is about
adding single lockdep annotation but comes with other changes.  I
don't think it's a big deal either way but at least we wouldn't be
having this %current vs. @tsk conversation which is mostly irrelevant
to the actual proposed change, right?  It really should have been a
separate patch from the beginning.  Just refer to the original commit
and explain what happened?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/