[PATCH v5] Add pretty printers for the NPTL lock types

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 03:16:56PM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> You can certainly have some common infrastructure code for both the
> pretty-printer implementations and for their tests.  It might well be fine
> to have a subdir for that common infrastructure code.  But anything
> actually related to a particular type must reside in the subdir responsible
> for the definition of that type.

So you're only suggesting moving nptl-printers.py to nptl, which seems
fine given that it is specific to nptl.  That does not conflict with
my insistence to have a subdir for pretty-printers because my
intention was to make it the destination for common code.  I did not
pay attention to what *should't* go into pretty-printers, which I now
realize I should have.

> This suggests to me that the testing methodology is a poor choice.  I'd
> have to review what you've done in more detail to know what I think is the
> best approach.  I suspect that using "next" (or "step", etc.) in tests like
> this is just a bad idea altogether (as opposed to only using explicit
> breakpoints).  If it turns out that using "next" over an "if" is an
> important thing to be able to do, then put the complex condition into an
> inline or macro.

Actually the comments on those lines are quite inane and could be
dropped altogether, which should take care of most of those long
lines.

Siddhesh