From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joel Fernandes Date: Sat, 25 May 2019 18:18:18 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/5] Remove some notrace RCU APIs Message-Id: <20190525181818.GA225569@google.com> List-Id: References: <20190524234933.5133-1-joel@joelfernandes.org> <20190524232458.4bcf4eb4@gandalf.local.home> <20190525081444.GC197789@google.com> <20190525070826.16f76ee7@gandalf.local.home> <20190525141954.GA176647@google.com> <20190525155035.GE28207@linux.ibm.com> <20190525181407.GA220326@google.com> In-Reply-To: <20190525181407.GA220326@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: Steven Rostedt , 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 Mackerras , rcu@vger.kernel.org On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 02:14:07PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: [snip] > > That aside, if we are going to change the name of an API that is > > used 160 places throughout the tree, we would need to have a pretty > > good justification. Without such a justification, it will just look > > like pointless churn to the various developers and maintainers on the > > receiving end of the patches. > > Actually, the API name change is not something I want to do, it is Steven > suggestion. My suggestion is let us just delete _raw_notrace and just use the > _raw API for tracing, since _raw doesn't do any tracing anyway. Steve pointed > that _raw_notrace does sparse checking unlike _raw, but I think that isn't an > issue since _raw doesn't do such checking at the moment anyway.. (if possible > check my cover letter again for details/motivation of this series). Come to think of it, if we/I succeed in adding lockdep checking in _raw, then we can just keep the current APIs and not delete anything. And we can have _raw_notrace skip the lockdep checks. The sparse check question would still be an open one though, since _raw doesn't do sparse checks at the moment unlike _raw_notrace as Steve pointed. Thanks, - Joel