On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 01:38:05 -0700 Joel Fernandes <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > So actually with or without the clean up, I don't see any issues with > dropping lockdep_recursing in my tests at the moment. I'm not sure something > else changed between then and now causing the issue to go away. I can include > Peter's clean up in my series though if he's Ok with it since you guys agree > its a good clean up anyway. Would you prefer I did that, and then also > dropped the lockdep_recursing checks? Or should I keep the > lockdep_recursing() checks just to be safe? Do you see cases where you want > irqsoff tracing while lockdep_recursing() is true? I say rewrite it as per Peter's suggestion. Perhaps even add credit to Peter like: Cleaned-up-code-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> ;-) And yes, I would recommend dropping the lockdep_recursion() if you can't trigger issues from within your tests. If it shows up later, we can always add it back. Thanks! -- Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kselftest" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
