From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joel Fernandes Date: Sat, 25 May 2019 08:14:44 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/5] Remove some notrace RCU APIs Message-Id: <20190525081444.GC197789@google.com> List-Id: References: <20190524234933.5133-1-joel@joelfernandes.org> <20190524232458.4bcf4eb4@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <20190524232458.4bcf4eb4@gandalf.local.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Steven Rostedt Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Ingo Molnar , Jonathan Corbet , Josh Triplett , kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, Lai Jiangshan , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Mathieu Desnoyers , Michael Ellerman , Miguel Ojeda , "Paul E. McKenney" , Paul Mackerras , rcu@vger.kernel.org On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 11:24:58PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Fri, 24 May 2019 19:49:28 -0400 > "Joel Fernandes (Google)" wrote: > > > The series removes users of the following APIs, and the APIs themselves, since > > the regular non - _notrace variants don't do any tracing anyway. > > * hlist_for_each_entry_rcu_notrace > > * rcu_dereference_raw_notrace > > > > I guess the difference between the _raw_notrace and just _raw variants > is that _notrace ones do a rcu_check_sparse(). Don't we want to keep > that check? This is true. Since the users of _raw_notrace are very few, is it worth keeping this API just for sparse checking? The API naming is also confusing. I was expecting _raw_notrace to do fewer checks than _raw, instead of more. Honestly, I just want to nuke _raw_notrace as done in this series and later we can introduce a sparse checking version of _raw if need-be. The other option could be to always do sparse checking for _raw however that used to be the case and got changed in http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-afs/2016-July/001016.html thanks a lot, - Joel > > -- Steve