25/11/2019 23:55, Dharmik Thakkar: > > > 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]?
No that's fine, it's clear now. Thank you
