[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87y2s0ceon.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2020 19:55:36 +0100
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] completion: Use simple wait queues
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> writes:
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 10:47 AM Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
> <bigeasy@...utronix.de> wrote:
> and before you do a conversion, you need to spend a _lot_ of time
> thinking about why that is the case.
>
> And _after_ you do the conversion, you damn well need to explain why
> it's safe. Not just state that it's a good idea.
>
> For example, this patch just randomly changes wait events to the swait
> event _exclusive_ waits. With not a single explanation of why that
> would be ok.
>
> I want an explanation for EVERY SINGLE CASE. Because people have done
> this kind of conversion before, and it's been buggy garbage before. I
> want to see that people actually thought about what the semantic
> differences were, and _documented_ that thinking process.
My bad. I'll rework the changelog so it contains the proof that the
result is semantical and functional equivalent.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists