[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <62ef3d73-1a33-4357-925e-9c2fdf1ac8fb@paulmck-laptop>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2025 21:23:26 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: rcu@...r.kernel.org, Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@...dia.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...a.com,
rostedt@...dmis.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/12] checkpatch: Deprecate srcu_read_lock_lite() and
srcu_read_unlock_lite()
On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 08:48:44PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2025-04-01 at 07:05 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 11:53:25PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2025-03-31 at 14:03 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > Uses of srcu_read_lock_lite() and srcu_read_unlock_lite() are better
> > > > served by the new srcu_read_lock_fast() and srcu_read_unlock_fast() APIs.
> > > > As in srcu_read_lock_lite() and srcu_read_unlock_lite() would never have
> > > > happened had I thought a bit harder a few months ago. Therefore, mark
> > > > them deprecated.
> > >
> > > Would it be better to convert the 3 existing instances?
> >
> > Both are needed. The point of these checkpatch.pl changes is to prevent
> > other instances from being added.
>
> If those are changed, why not remove the prototypes & functions too?
> That would stop more instances being added no?
Deprecating it for a cycle then removing the prototypes and functions
seems a bit more friendly to me.
Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists