[lkml]   [2019]   [Sep]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 0/4] task: Making tasks on the runqueue rcu protected
Linus Torvalds <> writes:

> On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 5:30 AM Eric W. Biederman <> wrote:
>> I have reworked these patches one more time to make it clear that the
>> first 3 patches only fix task_struct so that it experiences a rcu grace
>> period after it leaves the runqueue for the last time.
> I remain a fan of these patches, and the added comment on the last one
> is I think a sufficient clarification of the issue.
> But it's patch 3 that makes me go "yeah, this is the right approach",
> because it just removes subtle code in favor of something that is
> understandable.
> Yes, most of the lines removed may be comments, and so it doesn't
> actually remove a lot of _code_, but I think the comments are a result
> of just how subtle and fragile our current approach is, and the new
> model not needing them as much is I think a real issue (rather than
> just Eric being less verbose in the new comments and removing lines of
> code that way).

In fact the comments I add are orthogonal to the comments I removed.
My last patch stands on it's own. It can be applied with or without the
rest. I just needed to know which of the ordinary rcu guarantees were
or were not present in the code.

> Can anybody see anything wrong with the series? Because I'd love to
> have it for 5.4,


I am more than happy for these to come through your tree. However
if this is one thing to many I will be happy to send Linus a pull
request myself early next week.


 \ /
  Last update: 2019-09-17 19:39    [W:0.362 / U:0.040 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site