Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760957AbXEUMrV (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 May 2007 08:47:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755740AbXEUMrJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 May 2007 08:47:09 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:53501 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755879AbXEUMrH (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 May 2007 08:47:07 -0400 Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 14:46:55 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Bill Huey Cc: Peter Zijlstra , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jason Baron , Steven Rostedt Subject: Re: [PATCH] lockdep: lock contention tracking Message-ID: <20070521124655.GA411@elte.hu> References: <1179657026.5915.10.camel@lappy> <20070521060446.GA4593@gnuppy.monkey.org> <20070521060828.GB20277@elte.hu> <20070521064150.GC4442@gnuppy.monkey.org> <20070521075013.GA9419@elte.hu> <20070521091848.GB4593@gnuppy.monkey.org> <20070521093639.GA29025@elte.hu> <20070521101946.GC4593@gnuppy.monkey.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070521101946.GC4593@gnuppy.monkey.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.1.7 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1434 Lines: 33 * Bill Huey wrote: > > and regarding C99 style lock initializers: the -rt project has been > > removing a whole heap of them in the past 2.5 years, since Oct 2004 > > or so, and regularly cleansed the upstream kernel for old-style > > initializers ever since then - so i'm not sure what you are > > referring to. > > Don't worry about it. I did the same work only to realize that there > wasn't much left to convert over. i dont worry about it the least, i only replied to this sentence of yours: > > > I write lockstat without the knowledge that lockdep was > > > replicating the same work and I audited 1600 something lock points > > > in the kernel to convert the usage of C99 style initializers to > > > something more regular. which combines into this statement of yours: "I audited 1600 something lock points in the kernel to convert the usage of C99 style initializers something more regular, only to find out that there wasn't much left to convert over?", correct? Which begs the question: why did you mention this then at all? I usually reply to points made by others in the assumption that there's some meaning behind them ;-) Ingo - 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/