On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 03:47:43PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> I love that! I've seen so many cases where I wanted this runtime check without
> the overhead of it on production kernels.
> I can take that patch, now since this is lockdep code and my series is
> code that depend on it, how can we manage the dependency between the two
> Perhaps I can add the lockdep patch in the series, there will likely be no
> wicked conflicts agains potential changes in the lockdep tree.
Yeah, just take it along with the rest of the patches.