On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 11:24:58PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Fri, 24 May 2019 19:49:28 -0400 > "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > The series removes users of the following APIs, and the APIs themselves, since > > the regular non - _notrace variants don't do any tracing anyway. > > * hlist_for_each_entry_rcu_notrace > > * rcu_dereference_raw_notrace > > > > I guess the difference between the _raw_notrace and just _raw variants > is that _notrace ones do a rcu_check_sparse(). Don't we want to keep > that check? This is true. Since the users of _raw_notrace are very few, is it worth keeping this API just for sparse checking? The API naming is also confusing. I was expecting _raw_notrace to do fewer checks than _raw, instead of more. Honestly, I just want to nuke _raw_notrace as done in this series and later we can introduce a sparse checking version of _raw if need-be. The other option could be to always do sparse checking for _raw however that used to be the case and got changed in http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-afs/2016-July/001016.html thanks a lot, - Joel > > -- Steve
