[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87y2i94igo.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2020 18:46:47 +0100
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,
syzbot+23a256029191772c2f02@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
syzbot+56078ac0b9071335a745@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
syzbot+867130cb240c41f15164@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Subject: Re: [patch 3/3] tick: Annotate tick_do_timer_cpu data races
On Mon, Dec 07 2020 at 13:09, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 06, 2020 at 10:12:56PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> + if (data_race(tick_do_timer_cpu) == TICK_DO_TIMER_BOOT) {
>
> I prefer the form:
>
> if (data_race(tick_do_timer_cpu == TICK_DO_TIMER_BOOT)) {
>
> But there doesn't yet seem to be sufficient data_race() usage in the
> kernel to see which of the forms is preferred. Do we want to bike-shed
> this now and document the outcome somewhere?
Yes please before we get a gazillion of patches changing half of them
half a year from now.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists