Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756497Ab3EFT5t (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 May 2013 15:57:49 -0400 Received: from hydra.sisk.pl ([212.160.235.94]:34700 "EHLO hydra.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756454Ab3EFT5q (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 May 2013 15:57:46 -0400 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Tejun Heo , Colin Cross Cc: lkml , Trond Myklebust , Len Brown , Pavel Machek , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , "J. Bruce Fields" , "David S. Miller" , Andrew Morton , Mandeep Singh Baines , Paul Walmsley , Al Viro , "Eric W. Biederman" , Oleg Nesterov , linux-nfs , Linux PM list , netdev , Linus Torvalds , Ben Chan Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] lockdep: check that no locks held at freeze time Date: Mon, 06 May 2013 22:06:05 +0200 Message-ID: <2307385.H0igaKqWJi@vostro.rjw.lan> User-Agent: KMail/4.9.5 (Linux/3.9.0+; KDE/4.9.5; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20130506193307.GD800@mtj.dyndns.org> References: <1367615050-3894-1-git-send-email-ccross@android.com> <20130506193307.GD800@mtj.dyndns.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1419 Lines: 35 On Monday, May 06, 2013 12:33:07 PM Tejun Heo wrote: > 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? Yeah. I'd prefer that very much. Thanks, Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- 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/