Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>,
        Xin He <hexin.op@bytedance.com>, keescook@chromium.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] debugobjects: add missing empty function debug_object_active_state()
In-Reply-To: <CAE-0n51T9ZGADCk6LaKJdnQwPvMCawSvjwUP+AF0hFohAFom0A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20210617071027.60278-1-hexin.op@bytedance.com> <CAE-0n51T9ZGADCk6LaKJdnQwPvMCawSvjwUP+AF0hFohAFom0A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 19 Jun 2021 18:47:25 +0200
Message-ID: <87wnqpdco2.ffs@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jun 18 2021 at 22:03, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Xin He (2021-06-17 00:10:27)
>> All other functions are defined for when CONFIG_DEBUG_OBJECTS
>> is not set.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Xin He <hexin.op@bytedance.com>
>> ---
>>  include/linux/debugobjects.h | 3 +++
>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/debugobjects.h b/include/linux/debugobjects.h
>> index 8d2dde23e9fb..af0d73d8d29b 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/debugobjects.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/debugobjects.h
>> @@ -99,6 +99,9 @@ static inline void
>>  debug_object_free      (void *addr, const struct debug_obj_descr *descr) { }
>>  static inline void
>>  debug_object_assert_init(void *addr, const struct debug_obj_descr *descr) { }
>> +static inline void
>> +debug_object_active_state(void *addr, const struct debug_obj_descr *descr,
>> +                         unsigned int expect, unsigned int next) { }
>
> I suppose it's a landmine that may go off at some point, but this isn't
> fixing anything that's broken at the moment, correct?

The two users (RCU/i915) have it guarded with RCU/I915 specific config
options which depend on CONFIG_DEBUG_OBJECTS.

I have no problem with the patch per se, but it want's a proper use case.

Thanks,

        tglx