From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF3C738DC65 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2026 08:11:20 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1789114282; cv=none; b=X8NtC10dgxi0o/LDjS+vcwigKjAzV12w5qt5kqSGbeMwZuHIKISGnXLgdYIMeoWLgRrdPsvhKiFsM/AxKeklePUjWdWkeoT1zTeMtxq9krIfeMw9dDZDasn0M9S7GHsx3KwfgfJpU67x5utdXZSG2wPtAZnDj/oh7TFWI6yjENQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1789114282; c=relaxed/simple; bh=eXuHGt67k3YWCU6sY4xsi4oujrtMDFHr4EXYTh2zNkI=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=dZ39O0mt99VtLo4L2hLW5drO1YuKbB+3gCZeN2I9l7bpCTopgVlkHbUQ8uvqlGsQt1dduvKLCm9qajptO8ZC9YCZuolJ5LqjWdAVFWJY4HyhiHXUDM437ybirzc1ADLRikOKx7jc91YLbuIaYeMOgOT7TVwWx04YL4f57h0Uzlo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=d4lh7G31; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="d4lh7G31" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 542271F000FF; Fri, 11 Sep 2026 08:11:20 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1789114280; bh=PDQhD0qR7mWu4lGo6maeC8gc5EWr8d/4JkfM9qeJFa8=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=d4lh7G31kf1OgaqpCnikktJjjtGJuLkCNP2AuachVA6uFTqL95bbf5zZhFcR1NoGC 53YNB6NY5ZBBMGYsXB8IoQZpWmOXFyPUHowRgKSxBWNjHpo70lFzXDDr/yiPi76UTQ rvncmlOFzGI4LzGlyGhUdJc4Vse9JA+DUdYEQ4EVaMefwgMs4bamVt/HmX5fyqB6bf ZP3WIWXF3MrWXrhTNEwujfTFdnjNCmikYWwtClnTaFv8KU169v8kMq/xmLfLIQmMjb +Et9TNeCaXWKq1P1v3Bv/8Ro6k5zBqG3d6pinjQJs+sPokCreymIdXjEoGnD+8F9x8 Dp+gh72vpGZQQ== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 05/15] cpu/hotplug: convert thread iterator to for_each_thread_rculock Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Ye Liu" Cc: linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20260911075800.491472-6-ye.liu@linux.dev> References: <20260911075800.491472-1-ye.liu@linux.dev> <20260911075800.491472-6-ye.liu@linux.dev> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2026 08:11:19 +0000 Message-Id: <20260911081120.542271F000FF@smtp.kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(= s) to consider: - [Medium] The commit message incorrectly claims to replace `for_each_threa= d()` with `for_each_thread_rculock()`, but the code actually replaces `for_= each_process()` with `for_each_process_rculock()`. -- commit 3ac98de6fbc4e97ba4981ef0c4941692c15a9309 Author: Ye Liu cpu/hotplug: convert thread iterator to for_each_thread_rculock This commit replaces a manual rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() pair in clear_tasks_mm_cpumask() with a scoped RCU lock iterator macro. > cpu/hotplug: convert thread iterator to for_each_thread_rculock > =20 > Replace the manual rcu_read_lock()/rcu_read_unlock() pair combined > with for_each_thread() loop in kernel/cpu.c with for_each_thread_rculock(= ), [Severity: Medium] Is the commit message accurate regarding the iterator being replaced? The commit message subject and body describe converting a thread iterator using for_each_thread() to for_each_thread_rculock(). However, looking at clear_tasks_mm_cpumask() in the diff: > diff --git a/kernel/cpu.c b/kernel/cpu.c > index b3c8553d7bd6c..00638d2abc0f6 100644 > --- a/kernel/cpu.c > +++ b/kernel/cpu.c > @@ -1254,8 +1254,7 @@ void clear_tasks_mm_cpumask(int cpu) > * full-fledged tasklist_lock. > */ > WARN_ON(cpu_online(cpu)); > - rcu_read_lock(); > - for_each_process(p) { > + for_each_process_rculock(p) { The code actually replaces for_each_process() with for_each_process_rculock= (). Could the commit message be updated to match the process iterator actually used in the patch to avoid confusion during review or bisection? --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260911075800.4914= 72-1-ye.liu@linux.dev?part=3D5