[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190820144407.GM28441@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2019 07:44:07 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Cc: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rcu@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -rcu dev 1/3] rcu/tree: tick_dep_set/clear_cpu should
accept bits instead of masks
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 02:08:45PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 09:44:20AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 06:32:27PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > > But would the following patch make sense? This would not help for (say)
> > > > use of TICK_MASK_BIT_POSIX_TIMER instead of TICK_DEP_BIT_POSIX_TIMER, but
> > > > would help for any new values that might be added later on. And currently
> > > > for TICK_DEP_MASK_CLOCK_UNSTABLE and TICK_DEP_MASK_RCU.
> > >
> > > I'd rather make the TICK_DEP_MASK_* values private to kernel/time/tick-sched.c but
> > > that means I need to re-arrange a bit include/trace/events/timer.h
> >
> > That would be even better! For one thing, it would detect misuse of
> > -all- of the _MASK_ values. ;-)
>
> :o)
>
> >
> > > I'm looking into it. Meanwhile, your below patch that checks for the max value is
> > > still valuable.
> >
> > If I were to push it, it would be v5.5 before it showed up. My guess
> > is therefore that I should keep it for my own internal use in the near
> > term, but not push it. If you would like to take it, feel free to use
> > my Signed-off-by.
>
> Ok, applying.
Thank you, Frederic!
Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists