> On Nov 25, 2019, at 4:44 PM, Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> wrote: > > 25/11/2019 23:02, Wang, Yipeng1: >> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:tho...@monjalon.net] >>> 25/11/2019 19:49, Wang, Yipeng1: >>>> From: Dharmik Thakkar [mailto:dharmik.thak...@arm.com] >>>>> >>>>> Remove __hash_rw_reader_unlock() calls from lock free hash lookup >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Dharmik Thakkar <dharmik.thak...@arm.com> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Gavin Hu <gavin...@arm.com> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagaraha...@arm.com> >>>>> --- >>>> Acked-by: Yipeng Wang <yipeng1.w...@intel.com> >>>> >>>> Thanks for the patch! >>> >>> Excuse me, there is no motivation (the why) in this patch. >>> Is it critical? which gain? >>> >> [Wang, Yipeng] >> Thomas, do you mean the commit message is not clear enough? >> I think it is self-explained that in the "lock-free" implementation, we >> don't need >> "read_unlock()" and the subject line also says that. >> But it is always better to be more explicit. > > I understand that it is not needed. > But it doesn't say what is the impact of having this unlock. > Is there a real performance impact? > Is it critical enough to be merged in 19.11-rc4? > If it is not candidate for 19.11, it is better to prepend the title with > [20.02]. > Thomas, I don’t think there is any performance impact. This is more of a clean-up patch. It is not critical as those “read_unlock()” don’t cause any error. Should I update the patch title with [20.02]? >
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
