On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 02:13:56PM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>
>
> On 1/21/2026 2:09 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 06:12:20PM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> >> These are a few nocb related cleanup patches for the next merge window.
> >>
> >> Also Frederic please object to the second patch ("Remove dead callback
> >> overload
> >> handling") if you would like, but I think based on our discussion I have
> >> implemented your suggestion, so it should be good.
> >>
> >> Changes from v2:
> >> - Dropped patch 2 "Add warning if no rcuog wake up attempt happened during
> >> overload" as it was not needed since we removed the dead CB overload
> >> handling.
> >> - Replaced "Add warning to detect if overload advancement is ever useful"
> >> with
> >> "Remove dead callback overload handling" per Frederic's feedback -
> >> instead of
> >> adding a warning, just remove the dead code path entirely.
> >>
> >> nocb rcutorture scenarios passed overnight testing on my system.
> >
> > I reverted three of your earlier patches in order to apply this, only
> > one of which I am really confident in. Please check my -rcu tree to see
> > if any of the three should be added back in, and I am starting tests in
> > the meantime.Age Commit message (Expand) Author Files Lines
>
> Per your latest /dev branch
> (https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/linux-rcu.git/log/?h=dev),
> you have the latest 3 patches:
>
> Extract nocb_defer_wakeup_cancel() helperdev Joel Fernandes 1 -8/+11
> rcu/nocb: Remove dead callback overload handling Joel Fernandes 1
> -12/+0
> rcu/nocb: Remove unnecessary WakeOvfIsDeferred wake path Joel Fernandes
> 3 -36/+18
Thank you for checking!
And just to double-check, all of the patches that I reverted are obsolete,
correct?
Thanx, Paul
