On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 10:19:54AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 07:08:26AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Sat, 25 May 2019 04:14:44 -0400 > > Joel Fernandes <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > 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 > > > > What if we just rename _raw to _raw_nocheck, and _raw_notrace to _raw ? > > That would also mean changing 160 usages of _raw to _raw_nocheck in the > kernel :-/. > > The tracing usage of _raw_notrace is only like 2 or 3 users. Can we just call > rcu_check_sparse directly in the calling code for those and eliminate the APIs? > > I wonder what Paul thinks about the matter as well. My thought is that it is likely that a goodly number of the current uses of _raw should really be some form of _check, with lockdep expressions spelled out. Not that working out what exactly those lockdep expressions should be is necessarily a trivial undertaking. ;-) That aside, if we are going to change the name of an API that is used 160 places throughout the tree, we would need to have a pretty good justification. Without such a justification, it will just look like pointless churn to the various developers and maintainers on the receiving end of the patches. Thanx, Paul > thanks, Steven! >
