Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753633Ab2EGVzX (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 May 2012 17:55:23 -0400 Received: from mail-pb0-f46.google.com ([209.85.160.46]:51043 "EHLO mail-pb0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752641Ab2EGVzW (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 May 2012 17:55:22 -0400 Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 14:55:18 -0700 From: Tejun Heo To: Alan Stern Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" , Peter Zijlstra , Kernel development list Subject: Re: Lockdep false positive in sysfs Message-ID: <20120507215518.GN19417@google.com> References: <20120507194658.GH19417@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 785 Lines: 20 On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 05:51:52PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > I guess in the end it's a question of balance. Which has more > overhead, adding a few function calls here and there, or adding a new > flags field to every struct attribute? Yes, and there are different types of overheads. I'm happy to trade some runtime memory overhead under debugging mode for lower code complexity. Lock proving is pretty expensive anyway. I don't think there's much point in trying to optimize some bytes from struct attributes. Thanks. -- tejun -- 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/