On 2017-12-13 16:00:49 [+0200], Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-11-30 at 16:19 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > The code has an ifdef and uses two functions to either init the bare
> > spinlock or init it and set a lock-class. It is possible to do the same
> > thing without an
+peterz
context: http://www.spinics.net/lists/intel-gfx/msg149011.html
On 2017-12-13 17:37:21 [+0200], Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-12-13 at 16:06 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > On 2017-12-13 16:00:49 [+0200], Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2017-11-30 at 16:19 +0100,
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 06:36:33PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> +peterz
> context: http://www.spinics.net/lists/intel-gfx/msg149011.html
>
> On 2017-12-13 17:37:21 [+0200], Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-12-13 at 16:06 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > > On
On Wed, 2017-12-13 at 16:06 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2017-12-13 16:00:49 [+0200], Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> > On Thu, 2017-11-30 at 16:19 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > > The code has an ifdef and uses two functions to either init the bare
> > > spinlock or init it
On Thu, 2017-11-30 at 16:19 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> The code has an ifdef and uses two functions to either init the bare
> spinlock or init it and set a lock-class. It is possible to do the same
> thing without an ifdef.
> With this patch (in debug case) we first use the
The code has an ifdef and uses two functions to either init the bare
spinlock or init it and set a lock-class. It is possible to do the same
thing without an ifdef.
With this patch (in debug case) we first use the "default" lock class
which is later overwritten to the supplied one. Without lockdep
