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;
Date:   Thu, 25 Apr 2019 22:06:58 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Yuyang Du <duyuyang@gmail.com>
Cc:     will.deacon@arm.com, mingo@kernel.org, bvanassche@acm.org,
        ming.lei@redhat.com, frederic@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 26/28] locking/lockdep: Remove __bfs
Message-ID: <20190425200658.GZ12232@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20190424101934.51535-1-duyuyang@gmail.com>
 <20190424101934.51535-27-duyuyang@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190424101934.51535-27-duyuyang@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 06:19:32PM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote:
> Since there is no need for backward dependecy searching, remove this
> extra function layer.

OK, so $subject confused the heck out of me, I thought you were going to
remove the whole bfs machinery. May I suggest retaining
__bfs_backwards() in the previous patch (which I'm _waay_ to tired for
to look at now) and calling this patch: "Remove __bfs_backwards()".