On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 9:09 AM, Kirill Tkhai <ktk...@virtuozzo.com> wrote: > On 23.01.2018 19:58, Eric Dumazet wrote: >>> >>> Your original patch did not provide any test results. Only the fact >>> synchronize_rcu_expedited() >>> completes faster than plain synchronize_rcu(). But this is an obvious fact >>> just because of the design, and this is described even in the documentation. >>> Beleive me, I don't want to offend you this words, but it's strange you >>> hadn't >>> gone the way you suggest me. >> >> Well, I guess you missed the fine changelog. >> >> Please carefully read it : >> >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/davem/net.git/commit/?id=be3fc413da9eb17cce0991f214ab019d16c88c41 > > This is just what I said.
You said that I provided no test results. But I really did. That is included in the changelog. You provided no test results, but some confusing changelog that left the reader for whatever interpretation. > >> And you' ll noticed I had an Ack from Paul E. McKenney, the RCU maintainer. > I won't ask you either you had the ACK before you sent the patch, because > the answer is obvious. > > Anyway, this doesn't matter. I don't insist on the fix for this place. > If you're so negative on this question, we may leave everything as is, > and live with this ambiguous place several years more. Your patch has potential serious issues and you refuse to address my feedback, I am not sure we will progress. If you are ready to leave this for following years, why this patch was targeting net tree, I wonder.
