From: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>,
Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Cc: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>,
Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com>,
Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>,
Julien Grall <julien.grall@arm.com>,
xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] xen: drop preempt_count() for non-debug builds
Date: Wed, 22 May 2019 12:20:36 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <29eb74de-2df0-0835-a1c6-d37681779907@suse.com> (raw)
On 22/05/2019 12:18, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 22.05.19 at 12:00, <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
>> On 22/05/2019 10:45, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> preempt_count() and the associated per-cpu variable __preempt_count
>>> are tested in debug build only. So drop them for non-debug builds.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
>>
>> I'd be tempted to fold patches 2 and 3 together, because they are both
>> the same change, and it would reduce the churn.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>, ideally with the
>> two folded into one.
>
> I'm a little surprised by this: Wasn't it you who generally
> wanted what ASSERT() expands to (controlled by NDEBUG)
> be independent of CONFIG_DEBUG, at some point down
> the road? Aren't you even having ASSERT()s enabled in
> release builds of XenServer, or am I misremembering? If so
> patch 3 would move us in the wrong direction.
A possibility to solve that would be the addition of
CONFIG_ASSERT defaulting to CONFIG_DEBUG.
Juergen
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>,
Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Cc: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>,
Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com>,
Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>,
Julien Grall <julien.grall@arm.com>,
xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/3] xen: drop preempt_count() for non-debug builds
Date: Wed, 22 May 2019 12:20:36 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <29eb74de-2df0-0835-a1c6-d37681779907@suse.com> (raw)
Message-ID: <20190522102036._ox2TXOGOtLx8RExSiJg7yRTY5gSe27pGEwmEPaqXQY@z> (raw)
On 22/05/2019 12:18, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 22.05.19 at 12:00, <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
>> On 22/05/2019 10:45, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> preempt_count() and the associated per-cpu variable __preempt_count
>>> are tested in debug build only. So drop them for non-debug builds.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
>>
>> I'd be tempted to fold patches 2 and 3 together, because they are both
>> the same change, and it would reduce the churn.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>, ideally with the
>> two folded into one.
>
> I'm a little surprised by this: Wasn't it you who generally
> wanted what ASSERT() expands to (controlled by NDEBUG)
> be independent of CONFIG_DEBUG, at some point down
> the road? Aren't you even having ASSERT()s enabled in
> release builds of XenServer, or am I misremembering? If so
> patch 3 would move us in the wrong direction.
A possibility to solve that would be the addition of
CONFIG_ASSERT defaulting to CONFIG_DEBUG.
Juergen
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
next reply other threads:[~2019-05-22 10:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-05-22 10:20 Juergen Gross [this message]
2019-05-22 10:20 ` [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/3] xen: drop preempt_count() for non-debug builds Juergen Gross
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2019-05-22 9:45 [PATCH 0/3] tune preempt_[dis|en]able() Juergen Gross
2019-05-22 9:45 ` [PATCH 2/3] xen: drop preempt_count() for non-debug builds Juergen Gross
2019-05-22 10:00 ` Andrew Cooper
2019-05-22 10:17 ` Juergen Gross
2019-05-22 10:18 ` Jan Beulich
2019-05-22 10:39 ` Andrew Cooper
2019-05-22 10:12 ` Jan Beulich
[not found] ` <5CE5207A0200007800231481@suse.com>
2019-05-22 10:17 ` Juergen Gross
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=29eb74de-2df0-0835-a1c6-d37681779907@suse.com \
--to=jgross@suse.com \
--cc=George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com \
--cc=Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com \
--cc=JBeulich@suse.com \
--cc=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=julien.grall@arm.com \
--cc=konrad.wilk@oracle.com \
--cc=sstabellini@kernel.org \
--cc=tim@xen.org \
--cc=wei.liu2@citrix.com \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org \
/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).