From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/5] bonding: patchset for rcu use in bonding Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 17:44:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20131027.174458.627996500790326920.davem@davemloft.net> References: <52688F33.30904@huawei.com> <20131027.163712.1324471504006808112.davem@davemloft.net> <20131027211048.GA557@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dingtianhong@huawei.com, fubar@us.ibm.com, andy@greyhouse.net, nikolay@redhat.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: vfalico@redhat.com Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([149.20.54.216]:54184 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752672Ab3J0VpC (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Oct 2013 17:45:02 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20131027211048.GA557@redhat.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Veaceslav Falico Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 22:10:48 +0100 > All the changelogs for the patches are *the same*, and, while they try > to > explain what's done overall, the don't explain what's done per-patch, > why > it's done and why is it safe to move those locks around. He did say so, he listed in fact three alternative ways to fix the locking problem and then explciitly stated which of the three he choose. I would have preferred that he did all of this in the initial 0/N patch posting, but I can't defer forever.