Re: [PATCH] block2mtd lockdep_init_map warning

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Jörn
Date: Monday, January 7, 2008 - 3:20 am

On Mon, 7 January 2008 11:05:26 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

Looks a lot better than what I thought of.  However, does the #ifdef
within is_module_address() make sense when afaict lockdep is the only
caller of that function?  Looks as if the whole function should be made
conditional or none of it.


Jörn

-- 
I don't understand it. Nobody does.
-- Richard P. Feynman
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[PATCH] block2mtd lockdep_init_map warning, Erez Zadok, (Sun Jan 6, 12:17 am)
Re: [PATCH] block2mtd lockdep_init_map warning, Peter Zijlstra, (Sun Jan 6, 6:39 am)
Re: [PATCH] block2mtd lockdep_init_map warning , Erez Zadok, (Sun Jan 6, 12:11 pm)
Re: [PATCH] block2mtd lockdep_init_map warning, Peter Zijlstra, (Mon Jan 7, 3:05 am)
Re: [PATCH] block2mtd lockdep_init_map warning, Jörn, (Mon Jan 7, 3:20 am)
Re: [PATCH] block2mtd lockdep_init_map warning, Peter Zijlstra, (Mon Jan 7, 3:34 am)
Re: [PATCH] block2mtd lockdep_init_map warning, Rusty Russell, (Mon Jan 7, 5:47 pm)
Re: [PATCH] block2mtd lockdep_init_map warning, Peter Zijlstra, (Wed Jan 16, 1:16 am)
Re: [PATCH] block2mtd lockdep_init_map warning , Erez Zadok, (Sun Jan 20, 2:01 pm)