From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1755113AbcITPDl (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 20 Sep 2016 11:03:41 -0400
Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:50505 "EHLO mx2.suse.de"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1755064AbcITPDi (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 20 Sep 2016 11:03:38 -0400
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 08:03:28 -0700
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
To: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next v2 0/5] ipc/sem: semop(2) improvements
Message-ID: <20160920150328.GA21438@linux-80c1.suse>
References: <1474225896-10066-1-git-send-email-dave@stgolabs.net>
 <50042b05-2e9c-8483-710c-0f0eafc658e0@colorfullife.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <50042b05-2e9c-8483-710c-0f0eafc658e0@colorfullife.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, 19 Sep 2016, Manfred Spraul wrote:
>On 09/18/2016 09:11 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:

>>Davidlohr Bueso (5):
>>   ipc/sem: do not call wake_sem_queue_do() prematurely
>The only patch that I don't like.
>Especially: patch 2 of the series removes the wake_up_q from the 
>function epilogue.
>So only the code duplication (additional instances of 
>rcu_read_unlock()) remains, I don't see any advantages.
>
>>   ipc/sem: rework task wakeups
>Acked

Thanks.

>>   ipc/sem: optimize perform_atomic_semop()
>I'm still thinking about it.
>Code duplication is evil, but perhaps it is the best solution.
>
>What I don't like is the hardcoded "< BITS_PER_LONG".
>At least:
>- (1 << sop->sem_num)
>+ (1 << (sop->sem_num%BITS_PER_LONG))

Yeah, I'll send v3 for that.

>>   ipc/sem: explicitly inline check_restart
>Do we really need that? Isn't that the compiler's task?
>Especially since the compiler is already doing it correctly.

Yes, I mentioned in the changelog that the compiler does it and this is
merely explicit. That said I see no harm in it, I guess whatever akpm says.

>>   ipc/sem: use proper list api for pending_list wakeups
>Acked

Thanks,
Davidlohr