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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190424101934.51535-1-duyuyang@gmail.com> <20190424101934.51535-27-duyuyang@gmail.com>
 <20190425200658.GZ12232@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
In-Reply-To: <20190425200658.GZ12232@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   Yuyang Du <duyuyang@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 26 Apr 2019 14:35:46 +0800
Message-ID: <CAHttsrZhswsrNywoC0gQk4n+VTPPM=xvSPeJy_Tp92pEojzVQA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 26/28] locking/lockdep: Remove __bfs
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     will.deacon@arm.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>, ming.lei@redhat.com,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>, tglx@linutronix.de,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Thanks for review.

On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 at 04:07, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> 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()".

Sure thing.