Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 5/5] xen: modify several static locks to unique names

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 03.09.2019 17:03, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 03.09.19 16:53, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 29.08.2019 12:18, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> In order to have unique names when doing lock profiling several local
>>> locks "lock" need to be renamed.
>>
>> But these are all named simply "lock" for a good reason, including
>> because they're all function scope symbols (and typically the
>> functions are all sufficiently short). The issue stems from the
>> dual use of "name" in
>>
>> #define _LOCK_PROFILE(name) { 0, #name, &name, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 }
>>
>> so I'd rather suggest making this a derivation of a new
>>
>> #define _LOCK_PROFILE_NAME(lock, name) { 0, #name, &lock, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 }
>>
>> if there's no other (transparent) way of disambiguating the names.
> 
> This will require to use a different DEFINE_SPINLOCK() variant, so e.g.
> DEFINE_SPINLOCK_LOCAL(), which will then include the needed "static" and
> add "@<func>" to the lock profiling name. Is this okay?

To be frank - not really. I dislike both, and would hence prefer to
stick to what there is currently, until someone invents a transparent
way to disambiguate these. I'm sorry for being unhelpful here.

Jan

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel