[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20251212211839.6c3e2399@fedora>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2025 21:18:39 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc: Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@...dia.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Mathieu Desnoyers
<mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
<bigeasy@...utronix.de>, "bpf@...r.kernel.org" <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] tracing: Guard __DECLARE_TRACE() use of
__DO_TRACE_CALL() with SRCU-fast
On Fri, 12 Dec 2025 16:06:09 -0800
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org> wrote:
> Now *that* I have no problem with, as long as the consideration and
> exploration is very public and includes the usual BPF/tracing suspects.
So we are all set then ;-)
As I talked with both of you, I'll just reinstate my thoughts on the
patch here and make it public.
I agree with Joel that it would be better to have consistency between
RT and non-RT.
I agree with Paul that I do not want to add possible regressions for
the sake of consistency.
Thus, I'm going to keep this a PREEMPT_RT only change. If someone can
come in and convince us that the PREEMPT_RT way is also beneficial for
the non-RT case then we can make it consistent again. Until then, this
change is focusing on fixing PREEMPT_RT, and that's what the patch is
going to be limited to.
Thanks for the discussion,
-- Steve
PS. I have a working patch, but since I've been busy running a
conference, I haven't had the time to vet it enough for public
consumption.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists