From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754196AbZIWGpx (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Sep 2009 02:45:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754011AbZIWGpw (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Sep 2009 02:45:52 -0400 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:51089 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753888AbZIWGpw (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Sep 2009 02:45:52 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/4] Josh and Ingo review feedback and bloatwatch RCU From: Peter Zijlstra To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca, josh@joshtriplett.org, dvhltc@us.ibm.com, niv@us.ibm.com, tglx@linutronix.de, rostedt@goodmis.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, dhowells@redhat.com In-Reply-To: <20090922222443.GA3178@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20090922222443.GA3178@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 08:45:42 +0200 Message-Id: <1253688342.7695.99.camel@twins> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2009-09-22 at 15:24 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > This patch set applies two sets of review feedback from Josh Triplett and > checkpatch feedback from Ingo Molnar. It also contains a forward-port > of Bloatwatch RCU, courtesy of David Howells. It would be much easier to review if these patches had a changelog describing the problem they address :-) The first one seems to do: A) - aggregate 'rsp->completed == rsp->gpnum' expressions into a common function. - consistently use ACCESS_ONCE() in the above mentioned function B) - use DIV_ROUND_UP() C) - aggregate list_empty(&rnp->blocked_tasks[rnp->gpnum & 0x01]) expressions into a common function. Could have been three patches, but ACK. The second patch seems to mostly add comments, but also moves code around and makes it static, which could have been split in two patches. The purpose of the move code around bit could be a cleanup? Looks to preserve the logic, but didn't go out on a limb to verify, ACK. The third and fourth do have an adequate changelog :-)