From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CD6DC43218 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 05:42:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7F8B206BA for ; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 05:41:59 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="qag9KjXW" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726144AbfDZFl6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Apr 2019 01:41:58 -0400 Received: from mail-qt1-f196.google.com ([209.85.160.196]:36642 "EHLO mail-qt1-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725800AbfDZFl5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Apr 2019 01:41:57 -0400 Received: by mail-qt1-f196.google.com with SMTP id c35so2873713qtk.3 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2019 22:41:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ALLpMjxVV7s2gAejGFkSCvqnEKGQlvw6lP7jI9b0o+U=; b=qag9KjXWknF7uuEdv6ozbZ5nBt5wL6UuUSEwd4Ebrpeprk9cU/WyJtP9b50s2ET2qc cdy1GvZHpltDE4jVPxqSUEXf1crxK4pPF1eFc+25FXrItwxgWw/Xf8Md8cY2q6QclRtm Z7eFivTNbWIZSxQndD9/dXAgNNygLVeFpjr1otWRnU/tWBdy4EqLb7iolCPMk06oMkHf p5QM0ntv0Pvr5cqpJ9LXS9VVEqMyGiNhnAyO2Dm6rRfBdkXk8hPc7qL8/LU0GZmP189p x2c0uf+EoBIQCCCUFrREhHlDRdPKQHTNZMTnQqf4h1JpHW9MJJsBapPJXvcKwThfOHDk D8iA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ALLpMjxVV7s2gAejGFkSCvqnEKGQlvw6lP7jI9b0o+U=; b=c4XQb1n46OpGtE89OZPg0AKeKNIksUmJDJ+Lf5kvvgCn1+KGI3bmxXkFv5t6ELOcvi 8/DREHaSX4jw1S/N1DTqtQ9Fq2Dh/QxN5Y7FVZ1R48BSngNKgH6EbHQjEoVGoEWSKoT3 DZQnScPnl8HZClGy19yG+V3IJPQ71eJKGYesmSXH6eQGqh9L28/Kkpg0zSvax+DSoGwq dLSgWcJyMAffqDi6VVOBysQKVfgED5IXIb1ArNt1pMaFyeXU6c87ruw6GqNTT+my7SOg nRr3LZNjgYFmIWDVJnxvLHKk0x5d0pL2doDa0jJFn+otyupL+YJCQ1a380mxtOhBorx1 6WWA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWTaRPpszoZOqW/rl3iAmlugHokTzLr8WxNzmppsw2H6odKiW5+ mGMAIeSjEY4Jua/3P5lRopD0XFAbUXuLh+8nEqA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz0zBOCLrIQOWkGlOxgE4OeHmcPevliWC9oYZaCci0Os7htRJlFOqptJb5HffeZ+uUveJ6r8bdGJMgBidhJebY= X-Received: by 2002:a0c:ae04:: with SMTP id y4mr34693540qvc.49.1556257317039; Thu, 25 Apr 2019 22:41:57 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190424101934.51535-1-duyuyang@gmail.com> <20190424101934.51535-3-duyuyang@gmail.com> <20190425140110.GS12232@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> In-Reply-To: <20190425140110.GS12232@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> From: Yuyang Du Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2019 13:41:45 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/28] locking/lockdep: Add description and explanation in lockdep design doc To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: will.deacon@arm.com, Ingo Molnar , Bart Van Assche , ming.lei@redhat.com, Frederic Weisbecker , tglx@linutronix.de, LKML Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Thank you very much for review. You mean class can go away? Before Bart's addition, it can go away. Right? I think maybe the original point of "never go away" in that context did not intend to talk about a class's real disappearance. Anyway, the points should be made comprehensive. You want me to resend the patch or you modify it? On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 22:01, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 06:19:08PM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote: > > +Unlike a lock instance, a lock-class itself never goes away: when a > > +lock-class's instance is used for the first time after bootup the class gets > > +registered, and all (subsequent) instances of that lock-class will be mapped > > +to the lock-class. > > That's not entirely accurate anymore. Bart van Assche recently added > lockdep_{,un}register_key().