Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: <ff5bffea-2689-0ace-9c77-2aaa6605342c@siemens.com>
References: <20190325184522.260535-1-swboyd@chromium.org> <20190325184522.260535-4-swboyd@chromium.org> <227f1a1f-d8dd-72f4-4eb9-43bba714d52a@kernel.org> <155361993610.20095.762425616683725063@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com> <ff5bffea-2689-0ace-9c77-2aaa6605342c@siemens.com>
From:   Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] scripts/gdb: Add rb tree iterating utilities
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>,
        Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>,
        Nikolay Borisov <n.borisov.lkml@gmail.com>,
        Jackie Liu <liuyun01@kylinos.cn>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>,
        Kieran Bingham <kbingham@kernel.org>
Message-ID: <155363274033.20095.10762543028999566245@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>
User-Agent: alot/0.8
Date:   Tue, 26 Mar 2019 13:39:00 -0700
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Quoting Jan Kiszka (2019-03-26 10:21:21)
> On 26.03.19 18:05, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > Quoting Kieran Bingham (2019-03-26 01:52:10)
> >>
> >> Do you foresee any similar issue here? Or is the corresponding RB code
> >> in the kernel fairly 'stable'?
> >>
> >>
> >> Please could we make sure whomever maintains the RBTree code is aware =
of
> >> the python implementation?
> >>
> >> That said, MAINTAINERS doesn't actually seem to list any ownership over
> >> the rb-tree code, and get_maintainers.pl [0] seems to be pointing at
> >> Andrew as the probable route in for that code so perhaps that's already
> >> in place :D
> >=20
> > I don't think that the rb tree implementation is going to change. It
> > feels similar to the list API. I suppose this problem of keeping things
> > in sync is a more general problem than just data-structures changing.
> > The only solution I can offer is to have more testing and usage of these
> > scripts. Unless gdb can "simulate" or run arbitrary code for us then I
> > think we're stuck reimplementing kernel internal code in gdb scripts so
> > that we can get debug info out.
> >=20
>=20
> Could we possibly leave some link in form of comment in the related heade=
rs or=20
> implementations? Won't magically solve the problem but at least increase =
changes=20
> that author actually read them when they start changing the C implementat=
ions.
>=20

Sure. Can you propose some sort of patch against the 'list'
implementation for this? I'd like to just use whatever policy is decided
here.