[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190816205957.GG10481@google.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2019 16:59:57 -0400
From: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
paulmck <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Fix: trace sched switch start/stop racy updates
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 04:49:12PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 16:44:10 -0400
> Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org> wrote:
>
>
> > I am also more on the side of using *_ONCE. To me, by principal, I
> > would be willing to convert any concurrent plain access using _ONCE,
> > just so we don't have to worry about it now or in the future and also
> > documents the access.
> >
> > Perhaps the commit message can be reworded to mention that the _ONCE
> > is an additional clean up for safe access.
>
> The most I'll take is two separate patches. One is going to be marked
> for stable as it fixes a real bug. The other is more for cosmetic or
> theoretical issues, that I will state clearly "NOT FOR STABLE", such
> that the autosel doesn't take them.
Makes sense to me!
thanks,
- Joel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists