On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 04:16:41PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30 2024 at 11:58, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 06:30:02PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jan 24 2024 at 20:59, Byungchul Park wrote:
> >>
> >> Why is lockdep in the subsystem prefix
On Tue, Jan 30 2024 at 11:58, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 06:30:02PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 24 2024 at 20:59, Byungchul Park wrote:
>>
>> Why is lockdep in the subsystem prefix here? You are changing the CPU
>> hotplug (not hotplus) code, right?
>>
>> >
On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 06:30:02PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 24 2024 at 20:59, Byungchul Park wrote:
>
> Why is lockdep in the subsystem prefix here? You are changing the CPU
> hotplug (not hotplus) code, right?
>
> > cb92173d1f0 ("locking/lockdep, cpu/hotplug: Annotate AP
On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 06:30:02PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 24 2024 at 20:59, Byungchul Park wrote:
>
> Why is lockdep in the subsystem prefix here? You are changing the CPU
> hotplug (not hotplus) code, right?
I will fix the typo ;( Thank you.
I referred to the commit
On Wed, Jan 24 2024 at 20:59, Byungchul Park wrote:
Why is lockdep in the subsystem prefix here? You are changing the CPU
hotplug (not hotplus) code, right?
> cb92173d1f0 ("locking/lockdep, cpu/hotplug: Annotate AP thread") was
> introduced to make lockdep_assert_cpus_held() work in AP thread.
>
cb92173d1f0 ("locking/lockdep, cpu/hotplug: Annotate AP thread") was
introduced to make lockdep_assert_cpus_held() work in AP thread.
However, the annotation is too strong for that purpose. We don't have to
use more than try lock annotation for that.
Furthermore, now that Dept was introduced,
