Re: [mmotm and linux-next][PATCH] irq: enclose irq_desc_lock_class in CONFIG_LOCKDEP

[KOSAKI Motohiro]

>> or, following #ifdef ?
>>
>> #if defined(CONFIG_SPARSE_IRQ) || defined(CONFIG_TRACE_IRQFLAGS)
>>
>>  /*
>>  * lockdep: we want to handle all irq_desc locks as a single lock-class:
>>  */
>>  static struct lock_class_key irq_desc_lock_class;
>
> instead of increasing the #ifdef jungle, how about removing some? For
> example is this distinction:
>
>> >  #ifndef CONFIG_SPARSE_IRQ
>
> really needed? We should use symmetric lock class annotations, regardless
> of how irq_desc[] is laid out.

it seems make much sense. I'll test your idea tommorow.

thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/