Hello Kalle, On 5/28/24 11:44, Kalle Valo wrote: > Alexis Lothoré <alexis.lothore@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Because of the second point which would bring a not-so-clean fix, and the third >> one for which I still don't have a proper fix, I am considering to submit a >> revert for my RCU conversion series, to come back to SRCU. I don´t know if those >> issues do or do not make SRCU usage more legitimate, but at least I feel like >> really fixing it need slightly larger rework. I will still search for better >> options, but if I do not find any, I will submit the revert. > > Thanks for the good summary.Maybe it's easier just to revert the commit > immediately so that you don't have to waste more time on this? Yes, I have used already quite some time for this, let's do as you suggest and opt for the revert directly. > Especially if Ajay is missing. > > But if would be nice if you could also include a separate patch which > documents in the code why SRCU is needed. Just to avoid duplicate work > later :) Sure, I'll make sure to include this. Thanks, Alexis -- Alexis Lothoré, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
