From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on archive.lwn.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by archive.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D42B07D2EF for ; Sat, 25 May 2019 08:14:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726408AbfEYIOs (ORCPT ); Sat, 25 May 2019 04:14:48 -0400 Received: from mail-pl1-f196.google.com ([209.85.214.196]:39653 "EHLO mail-pl1-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726329AbfEYIOs (ORCPT ); Sat, 25 May 2019 04:14:48 -0400 Received: by mail-pl1-f196.google.com with SMTP id g9so5069762plm.6 for ; Sat, 25 May 2019 01:14:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelfernandes.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=1c/wOZB7UIcO4fhNsFW8JEtKnsulp1uLNI0yUTmwDCo=; b=tVo3uBLcpEIXXZnhVPqSswFuc4q2UlbviAt3R2V2Thcy9J19G8Vh9t8IKakn6eWu7P LF+dLcUy8MISmgvZ0VGCcUrlJOi0R9kMHNLpfYwqA4+5Un+SNXosWy9sZwuR5XURngkR S1XgD6r2KG9fhVaAYKrKbQt6RqcK7l5hP89YQ= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=1c/wOZB7UIcO4fhNsFW8JEtKnsulp1uLNI0yUTmwDCo=; b=s+TzRKvTSvqtl6L7VREXA8afKjpct4Rf+YMR/pEYbGkt70gyKksFk2+05p9RKUI6ZV KT9VNNAsSpgN9elh0/MMrjfJthR0LOISShs9kpuarwpGrdLMxjmDJQ/hoAyy/WGrkhIq PpYIZyRsh2kU9adbiZe9cNVrVKk8jSYvkORF0onz3TgzXNV7oATkYotYwprCGmQzEidZ InwXaxs3g6dPDvJhfm81JRGiLRVXggv5ev7cAmttnCEOSbn8GAoqeVSC+OaD2ehc8ou4 qsEWI1RO1SVn2nA785sPGaBchqYp4W9zMYpWIjmBmNyA0yVCci2/2MImk5ieYC+r3Ggm C4Yg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUn3jS3lVM0Q2tkVuGbTb/2DRUdEmoduAt0iSC5TKw5ECmX8Wmz 2YCkfG6I7Vk88KgXwl1fXJ3zhghTuz3GMg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy398cjiqw83nLMzWHb1uka5NbJ8a1bov+JXtig8R0soLxRu+ibdZSFPg0qivDKo96oArfXwQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:10c:: with SMTP id 12mr111734693plb.61.1558772087333; Sat, 25 May 2019 01:14:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([2620:15c:6:12:9c46:e0da:efbf:69cc]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 25sm4607225pfp.76.2019.05.25.01.14.45 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Sat, 25 May 2019 01:14:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 25 May 2019 04:14:44 -0400 From: Joel Fernandes 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 Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/5] Remove some notrace RCU APIs Message-ID: <20190525081444.GC197789@google.com> References: <20190524234933.5133-1-joel@joelfernandes.org> <20190524232458.4bcf4eb4@gandalf.local.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190524232458.4bcf4eb4@gandalf.local.home> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@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