From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760145AbbKTMYk (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Nov 2015 07:24:40 -0500 Received: from mezzanine.sirena.org.uk ([106.187.55.193]:40777 "EHLO mezzanine.sirena.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760010AbbKTMYi (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Nov 2015 07:24:38 -0500 Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 12:24:00 +0000 From: Mark Brown To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Peter Zijlstra , Sascha Hauer , Liam Girdwood , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar Message-ID: <20151120122400.GA1929@sirena.org.uk> References: <4219157.sstthfjICN@wuerfel> <20151120114127.GS31303@sirena.org.uk> <15541673.tdJ35xzzlG@wuerfel> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="45Z9DzgjV8m4Oswq" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <15541673.tdJ35xzzlG@wuerfel> X-Cookie: A beer delayed is a beer denied. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 94.175.94.161 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: broonie@sirena.org.uk Subject: Re: [PATCH, once again] regulator: core: avoid unused variable warning X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:24:06 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mezzanine.sirena.org.uk) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --45Z9DzgjV8m4Oswq Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 01:12:00PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Friday 20 November 2015 11:41:27 Mark Brown wrote: > > Can we please at least have a comment explaining that this is working > > around lockdep limitations? > Not sure which limitation you are referring to. Maybe you could just > modify the changelog text as you like when applying the patch? > I tried to capture the fact that mutex_lock_nested() intentionally > doesn't evaluate its second argument when CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC > is not set, but that appears to be less of a limitation than a > choice of the interface. That's the limitation (or intereface choice or whatever) that I'm talking about - the code looks like a function call so not evaulating the second argument is surprising. I'm looking for something in the code rather than the changelog so it doesn't get cleaned up later. --45Z9DzgjV8m4Oswq Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWTxDgAAoJECTWi3JdVIfQyxAH+QHFXwXG3B8xPKX0G229S09S FymA1Bdf7h4g90YntlLp6u6I37spa6ygKTW6p+39AWqU5h7mxq6fLdrHTQxxmhaW mh05I3CIBKcmuaimUYYp50d+OAgOAcXnFDVBtNmD6joQ/YGHI+cd/LwBfMWSX1bv 5cEwJtUY+OmLmEtBXZQh+08LcU/SxSlxfHM0GFUubUw5yOHtrWWK0FjzA9BDGLTi 48gkGfvdOWSMU1Mf4BoaE7hW3zpREsYk6/kwJLuFwGAzknEnU5YqoGOiisPGlJB8 trrnTa3de6FiKPTLvFvnTGLYJI31Xs4VOzWObobJPcvjY9QgFQkOQFnx9YPo3RI= =ue6k -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --45Z9DzgjV8m4Oswq-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: broonie@kernel.org (Mark Brown) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 12:24:00 +0000 Subject: [PATCH, once again] regulator: core: avoid unused variable warning In-Reply-To: <15541673.tdJ35xzzlG@wuerfel> References: <4219157.sstthfjICN@wuerfel> <20151120114127.GS31303@sirena.org.uk> <15541673.tdJ35xzzlG@wuerfel> Message-ID: <20151120122400.GA1929@sirena.org.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 01:12:00PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Friday 20 November 2015 11:41:27 Mark Brown wrote: > > Can we please at least have a comment explaining that this is working > > around lockdep limitations? > Not sure which limitation you are referring to. Maybe you could just > modify the changelog text as you like when applying the patch? > I tried to capture the fact that mutex_lock_nested() intentionally > doesn't evaluate its second argument when CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC > is not set, but that appears to be less of a limitation than a > choice of the interface. That's the limitation (or intereface choice or whatever) that I'm talking about - the code looks like a function call so not evaulating the second argument is surprising. I'm looking for something in the code rather than the changelog so it doesn't get cleaned up later. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 473 bytes Desc: not available URL: