On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 09:11:42PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 08:27:19AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 08:56:48AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > I just took offence at the Changelog wording. It seems to suggest there > > > actually is a problem, there is not. > > > > Quoting the changelog: "Not appropriate for backporting due to failure > > being unlikely." > > That implies there is failure, however unlikely. > > In this particular case there is absolutely no failure, except perhaps > in KCSAN. This patch is a pure annotation such that KCSAN can understand > the code. > > Like said, I don't object to the actual patch, but I do think it is > important to call out false negatives or to describe the actual problem > found. I don't feel at all comfortable declaring that there is absolutely no possibility of failure. Thanx, Paul
