Hello, Daniel. On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 07:11:31PM +0200, Daniel Wagner wrote: > On 25.08.2012 01:38, Tejun Heo wrote: > >>task_cls_classid() and task_netprioidx() (when built as > >>module) are protected by a jump label and therefore we can > >>simply replace the subsystem index lookup with the enum. > > > >Can we put these in a separate patch? ie. The first patch makes all > >subsys IDs constant and then patches to simplify users. > > Wouldn't this break bisection? I merged this step so that all steps > in this series are able to compile and run. I don't see why it should but maybe I'm missing something. If so, please enlighten me. > >>+#define IS_SUBSYS_ENABLED(option) IS_MODULE(option) > >>+#include <linux/cgroup_subsys.h> > >>+#undef IS_SUBSYS_ENABLED > >>+ > > > >Why do we need to segregate in-kernel and modular ones at all? What's > >wrong with just defining them in one go? > > I have done that but the result was a panic. There seems some code > which expects this ordering. Let me dig into this and fix it. Yes, please. > >Hmm... patch sequence looks odd to me. If you first make all IDs > >constant, you can first remove module specific ones and then later add > >jump labels as separate patches. Wouldn't that be simpler? > > As said above, I tried to keep all steps usable so bisection would > work. I think your steps would lead to non working versions of the > kernel. Hmmm... Yes, it should be bisectable but again I don't see why being biesectable interferes with the patch ordering here. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
