[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANn89iKAiJvOXLC4SkWnsKC-6m9HU1KoYAVPE_G_UhOb__Gj0g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2025 16:55:30 +0100
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>, Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Benjamin Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/4] posix-timers: Make next_posix_timer_id an atomic_t
On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 3:32 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 20 2025 at 15:04, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 20 2025 at 09:49, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >> On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 9:09 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> >>> > This allows the following patch to use RCU.
> >>>
> >>> Your patch ordering is slightly off by two :)
> >>>
> >>> And it fails to explain for what RCU can be used....
> >>
> >> This is explained in the following patches.
> >
> > The changelog of a patch has to be self contained. The 'following patch'
> > has no meaning when the patch is merged.
>
> That said, please just fold this into the patch which actually does this RCU
> lookup upfront. The change is trivial enough that it does not really
> require to be seperate. If the lockless increment would cause issues,
> then the subsequent RCU lookup is the least of the worries :)
I can squash all patches into a single one if you prefer.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists