On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:04:18PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
> >If Peter agrees with them and picks them up then the next merge window
> >would be fine I guess.
OK, picked them up; not sure it'll still make this window though :/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:04:18PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
If Peter agrees with them and picks them up then the next merge window
would be fine I guess.
OK, picked them up; not sure it'll still make this window though :/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel
On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:04:18PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
> >
> >* Sasha Levin wrote:
> >
> >>On 07/08/2013 04:39 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >>>
> >>>* Sasha Levin wrote:
> >>>
> >>The other issue is that with lock classes disabled you have to hit an
> >>actual deadlock to trigger any
On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:04:18PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
* Sasha Levin sasha.le...@oracle.com wrote:
On 07/08/2013 04:39 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Sasha Levin sasha.le...@oracle.com wrote:
The other issue is that with lock classes disabled you have to hit an
actual deadlock to
On 09/12/2013 02:01 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Sasha Levin wrote:
On 07/08/2013 04:39 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Sasha Levin wrote:
The other issue is that with lock classes disabled you have to hit an
actual deadlock to trigger any output.
I.e. much of the power of lockdep is diminished
On 09/12/2013 02:01 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Sasha Levin sasha.le...@oracle.com wrote:
On 07/08/2013 04:39 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Sasha Levin sasha.le...@oracle.com wrote:
The other issue is that with lock classes disabled you have to hit an
actual deadlock to trigger any output.
I.e.
On 09/12/2013 02:01 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
On 07/08/2013 04:39 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
PeterZ is in favor as well so I'll apply them after the merge window, for
v3.12.
Hi Ingo,
Do you intend to send liblockdep in this merge window as planned?
If Peter agrees with them and picks them up then
On 09/12/2013 02:01 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
On 07/08/2013 04:39 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
PeterZ is in favor as well so I'll apply them after the merge window, for
v3.12.
Hi Ingo,
Do you intend to send liblockdep in this merge window as planned?
If Peter agrees with them and picks them up then
On 07/08/2013 04:39 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Sasha Levin wrote:
The other issue is that with lock classes disabled you have to hit an
actual deadlock to trigger any output.
I.e. much of the power of lockdep is diminished :-/ When actual
deadlocks are triggered then it's not particularly
* Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 07/08/2013 04:39 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> >* Sasha Levin wrote:
> >
> The other issue is that with lock classes disabled you have to hit an
> actual deadlock to trigger any output.
>
> I.e. much of the power of lockdep is diminished :-/ When
* Sasha Levin sasha.le...@oracle.com wrote:
On 07/08/2013 04:39 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Sasha Levin sasha.le...@oracle.com wrote:
The other issue is that with lock classes disabled you have to hit an
actual deadlock to trigger any output.
I.e. much of the power of lockdep is
On 07/08/2013 04:39 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Sasha Levin sasha.le...@oracle.com wrote:
The other issue is that with lock classes disabled you have to hit an
actual deadlock to trigger any output.
I.e. much of the power of lockdep is diminished :-/ When actual
deadlocks are triggered then
* Sasha Levin wrote:
> >> The other issue is that with lock classes disabled you have to hit an
> >> actual deadlock to trigger any output.
> >>
> >> I.e. much of the power of lockdep is diminished :-/ When actual
> >> deadlocks are triggered then it's not particularly complex to debug
> >>
* Sasha Levin sasha.le...@oracle.com wrote:
The other issue is that with lock classes disabled you have to hit an
actual deadlock to trigger any output.
I.e. much of the power of lockdep is diminished :-/ When actual
deadlocks are triggered then it's not particularly complex to debug
On 06/27/2013 09:55 AM, Sasha Levin wrote:
On 06/27/2013 05:07 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Sasha Levin wrote:
On 06/26/2013 11:53 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
Ingo, I don't think I see anything holding this back; however I remember
reading some email about people not liking stuff like this living
On 06/27/2013 09:55 AM, Sasha Levin wrote:
On 06/27/2013 05:07 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Sasha Levin sasha.le...@oracle.com wrote:
On 06/26/2013 11:53 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
Ingo, I don't think I see anything holding this back; however I remember
reading some email about people not liking
On 06/27/2013 05:07 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Sasha Levin wrote:
On 06/26/2013 11:53 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
Ingo, I don't think I see anything holding this back; however I remember
reading some email about people not liking stuff like this living in the
tools/ directory or such.
Will you
* Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 06/26/2013 11:53 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >>Ingo, I don't think I see anything holding this back; however I remember
> >>>reading some email about people not liking stuff like this living in the
> >>>tools/ directory or such.
> >>>
> >>>Will you pick this up?
> >So I'd
* Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 06/26/2013 11:53 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >>Ingo, I don't think I see anything holding this back; however I remember
> >>>reading some email about people not liking stuff like this living in the
> >>>tools/ directory or such.
> >>>
> >>>Will you pick this up?
> >So I'd
* Sasha Levin sasha.le...@oracle.com wrote:
On 06/26/2013 11:53 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
Ingo, I don't think I see anything holding this back; however I remember
reading some email about people not liking stuff like this living in the
tools/ directory or such.
Will you pick this up?
So I'd
* Sasha Levin sasha.le...@oracle.com wrote:
On 06/26/2013 11:53 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
Ingo, I don't think I see anything holding this back; however I remember
reading some email about people not liking stuff like this living in the
tools/ directory or such.
Will you pick this up?
So I'd
On 06/27/2013 05:07 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Sasha Levin sasha.le...@oracle.com wrote:
On 06/26/2013 11:53 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
Ingo, I don't think I see anything holding this back; however I remember
reading some email about people not liking stuff like this living in the
tools/
On 06/26/2013 11:53 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
Ingo, I don't think I see anything holding this back; however I remember
>reading some email about people not liking stuff like this living in the
>tools/ directory or such.
>
>Will you pick this up?
So I'd really be interested in how
* Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 06:41:15PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > liblockdep is a tiny wrapper built around kernel/lockdep.c. The aim is to
> > provide the same functionality the kernel gets from lockdep to userspace.
> >
> > The bulk of the code here is the LD_PRELOAD
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 06:41:15PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> liblockdep is a tiny wrapper built around kernel/lockdep.c. The aim is to
> provide the same functionality the kernel gets from lockdep to userspace.
>
> The bulk of the code here is the LD_PRELOAD support which provides users
> an
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 06:41:15PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
liblockdep is a tiny wrapper built around kernel/lockdep.c. The aim is to
provide the same functionality the kernel gets from lockdep to userspace.
The bulk of the code here is the LD_PRELOAD support which provides users
an easy
* Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 06:41:15PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
liblockdep is a tiny wrapper built around kernel/lockdep.c. The aim is to
provide the same functionality the kernel gets from lockdep to userspace.
The bulk of the code here is the
On 06/26/2013 11:53 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
Ingo, I don't think I see anything holding this back; however I remember
reading some email about people not liking stuff like this living in the
tools/ directory or such.
Will you pick this up?
So I'd really be interested in how interesting/useful
liblockdep is a tiny wrapper built around kernel/lockdep.c. The aim is to
provide the same functionality the kernel gets from lockdep to userspace.
The bulk of the code here is the LD_PRELOAD support which provides users
an easy way to test their code without having to integrate liblockdep into
liblockdep is a tiny wrapper built around kernel/lockdep.c. The aim is to
provide the same functionality the kernel gets from lockdep to userspace.
The bulk of the code here is the LD_PRELOAD support which provides users
an easy way to test their code without having to integrate liblockdep into
30 matches
Mail list logo
