From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) (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 A20E233985 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2025 14:05:01 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1740060303; cv=none; b=oTQOKGOAAU0PvvkIJys2UumwT6pU3cQOv13w2XxOb1XHX+NHwOJ8nBX7kol+MsmqI7ioNgYQcao6cE1nlWa+1YRtkhY+C5rGHzwu1ctKDthU3hsVqgwE41oB3Smf+7HFRtXHSNoy8noAT6Q+JB13iRAIL8BSlQxsaBjrcSHv3cc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1740060303; c=relaxed/simple; bh=XIPdRxF0jRCkVl8AX6evKiKXtPkJXWbZ/BVPmKmEdNE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=ReUL4b43Gt7sSBuxj87Tu1SJoz1vg5LamLGeVGFwF8XIQ/uwNqHYEqbFNu6mkYRHzU3552Y36mJu0x4VhNShapspbbXYYWf2IUkBq1IzNVPbuWtJbp2IvsLRO9fwNNWghSyXVAwOgkB3vPLFdDWwYH0lccfbrPE5TaU/DQn6B/U= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=3Gw7b11A; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=pfLMZvzL; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="3Gw7b11A"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="pfLMZvzL" From: Thomas Gleixner DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1740060294; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=mJmBnGypEHoshKrGLRN5jC34a8kVfNK01sMA/Czi5OI=; b=3Gw7b11APOMge83I18WLFgvE9Artj5/oY5HZ2engrvTDAQl39ZEvjXprWcql/prERL57D9 2F3yawaFpk7dRTuHiVsQeDjXCozxs0FjRTUljsAcedN34WYCkcUK4tOreU2cs2JFohHr1h /uT/h7APK8FuKJo2+YQ1KsTFPbqDoonPjPmjzVaIisJAc9pJF5XQQD1BC7vLM+3joIG7jr OAdGdwj7Mx1x7RfLeHIQIxxzMjA95s/GptOI7KMbJvftSb09zqzEya9sVlf4by8LKDQijZ B1bRserO2yeQc93qDq4sPSDrg2WOe8HHV1qCvZq6Hz8LRRTxt/HbtyTIN6LdCA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1740060294; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=mJmBnGypEHoshKrGLRN5jC34a8kVfNK01sMA/Czi5OI=; b=pfLMZvzLiuE6o/kcwx/IgArD4nN3xIyKSYXUNheLoREopF7/Yw2PmGop/D8Gezf8JH2qtt O7rMBInUiUMU7GDA== To: Eric Dumazet Cc: Anna-Maria Behnsen , Frederic Weisbecker , linux-kernel , Benjamin Segall , Eric Dumazet Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/4] posix-timers: Make next_posix_timer_id an atomic_t In-Reply-To: References: <20250219125522.2535263-1-edumazet@google.com> <20250219125522.2535263-2-edumazet@google.com> <87wmdlhwa8.ffs@tglx> Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2025 15:04:53 +0100 Message-ID: <87h64oiuey.ffs@tglx> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Feb 20 2025 at 09:49, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 9:09=E2=80=AFAM Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> > This allows the following patch to use RCU. >> >> Your patch ordering is slightly off by two :) >> >> And it fails to explain for what RCU can be used.... > > This is explained in the following patches. The changelog of a patch has to be self contained. The 'following patch' has no meaning when the patch is merged. > If I add nothing in the changelog, you complain the changelog is not > explaining anything. > > I suggest you write the patches. because I feel a huge resistance, > which I do not understand. I'm just asking that I get properly written change logs which adhere to the documented change log requirements. How does that qualify as resistance? Thanks, tglx