On 1/14/25 05:09, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 18:53:11 -0800 Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 5:49 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> > >> > Yes, we're at -rc7 and this series is rather in panic mode and it seems >> > unnecessarily risky so I'm inclined to set it aside for this cycle. >> > >> > If the series is considered super desirable and if people are confident >> > that we can address any remaining glitches during two months of -rc >> > then sure, we could push the envelope a bit. But I don't believe this >> > is the case so I'm thinking let's give ourselves another cycle to get >> > this all sorted out? >> >> I didn't think this series was in panic mode with one real issue that >> is not hard to address (memory ordering in >> __refcount_inc_not_zero_limited()) but I'm obviously biased and might >> be missing the big picture. In any case, if it makes people nervous I >> have no objections to your plan. > > Well, I'm soliciting opinions here. What do others think? > > And do you see much urgency with these changes? I don't see the urgency and at this point giving it more time seems wise. Seems like v10 won't be exactly trivial as we'll change from refcount_t to atomic_t? And I'd like to see PeterZ review the lockdep parts too.
