Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> writes: > On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 5:30 AM Eric W. Biederman <ebied...@xmission.com> > 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, Peter, 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. Eric
