From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Lockdep false positive in sysfs
Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 14:55:18 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120507215518.GN19417@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1205071740420.23176-100000@netrider.rowland.org>
On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 05:51:52PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> I guess in the end it's a question of balance. Which has more
> overhead, adding a few function calls here and there, or adding a new
> flags field to every struct attribute?
Yes, and there are different types of overheads. I'm happy to trade
some runtime memory overhead under debugging mode for lower code
complexity. Lock proving is pretty expensive anyway. I don't think
there's much point in trying to optimize some bytes from struct
attributes.
Thanks.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-05-07 21:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-04-25 18:58 Lockdep false positive in sysfs Alan Stern
2012-04-25 21:59 ` Tejun Heo
2012-04-26 8:16 ` Eric W. Biederman
2012-04-26 18:14 ` Alan Stern
2012-04-26 22:17 ` Tejun Heo
2012-04-27 15:57 ` Alan Stern
2012-04-27 16:09 ` Tejun Heo
2012-05-03 21:30 ` Alan Stern
2012-05-04 16:52 ` Tejun Heo
2012-05-04 19:08 ` Alan Stern
2012-05-07 19:46 ` Tejun Heo
2012-05-07 21:51 ` Alan Stern
2012-05-07 21:55 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2012-05-08 18:53 ` Alan Stern
2012-05-09 17:41 ` Tejun Heo
2012-05-09 17:47 ` Alan Stern
2012-05-09 17:48 ` Tejun Heo
2012-04-27 16:27 ` Eric W. Biederman
2012-04-27 18:27 ` Alan Stern
2012-04-27 20:17 ` Tejun Heo
2012-04-27 21:09 ` Eric W. Biederman
2012-04-27 21:16 ` Tejun Heo
2012-04-29 2:00 ` Alan Stern
2012-04-29 2:35 ` Eric W. Biederman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120507215518.GN19417@google.com \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).