Re: [PATCH 0/2] jump label: 2.6.38 updates

[Jason Baron]

On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 11:43:43AM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra (peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 11:29 -0500, Jason Baron wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 05:25:54PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > I remember that atomic_t is defined in types.h now rather than atomic.h.
> > > > > Any reason why you should keep including atomic.h from jump_label.h ?
> > > > 
> > > > Ooh, shiny.. we could probably move the few atomic_{read,inc,dec} users
> > > > in jump_label.h into out of line functions and have this sorted.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > inc and dec sure, but atomic_read() for the disabled case needs to be
> > > inline....
> > 
> > D'0h yes of course, I was thinking about jump_label_enabled(), but
> > there's still the static_branch() implementation to consider.
> > 
> > We could of course cheat implement our own version of atomic_read() in
> > order to avoid the whole header mess, but that's not pretty at all
> > 
> 
> OK, so the other way around then : why does kernel.h need to include
> dynamic_debug.h (which includes jump_label.h) ?
> 

well, its used to dynamically enable/disable pr_debug() statements which
actually have now moved to linux/printk.h, which is included by
kernel.h.

I don't need an atomic_read() in the disabled case for dynamic debug,
and I would be ok, #ifdef CONFIG_JUMP_LABEL, in dynamic_debug.h. Its not
the prettiest solution. But I can certainly live with it for now, so
that we can sort out the atomic_read() issue independently.

Peter, Mathieu, are you guys ok with this?

-Jason
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/