[I missed this followup, other stuff] On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 03:41:49PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 10:21:11AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 02:07:53PM +0300, Elena Reshetova wrote: > > IMO, that makes it way too hard to review sanely for code that: > > > > a) we already know works correctly > > But how do you know if you have unknown ordering requirements? Because back when it was converted to atomic-based object reference counts, I went through all the memory-barriers.txt stuff to make sure it was OK. That was years ago, and I've forgotten it all and the life-cycle constaints that lead us to use atomics in this manner. Now, I've got to go determine what the difference between atomic and refcounts are and work them out myself because nobody has documented it. And I have to go look at all the commit logs to work out in that has any effect on the objects using the atomics, because that's no longer in my head. There probably isn't an issue here, but such changes are not done without review, and that's what is needed to review the change. That's the problem here - I have to work out what the differences in ordering constraints between refcounts and atomics are myself because it's not actually documented anywhere for reviewiers to understand. That's a significant burden to put on a reviewer for what is supposed to be a "no-op" change. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
