Re: linux-next oops in __lock_acquire for process_one_work

[Ingo Molnar]

* Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Wed, 9 May 2012, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-05-08 at 11:11 -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > Please send me the version of patch you'd like to put in
> > > (lest I make it up myself and you don't like the result).
> > 
> > something like so?
> 
> More like the one below: I'm not alone in preferring a comma 
> between args!

Silly compilers!

> And you're not a believer in checkpatch.pl, I see: I've removed trailing
> spaces; but left the 85-col line, that's not a fight I'll have with you.

I suspect we could break up the prototype like this:

static inline void
lockdep_copy_map(struct lockdep_map *to, struct lockdep_map *from)

> I'll set it going when I get home later - thanks.

Do we still need an explanation about why it's needed and why it 
makes a difference?

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/