Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180124112629.GA2339@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1516694381-20333-1-git-send-email-lianglihao@huawei.com>
 <1516694381-20333-2-git-send-email-lianglihao@huawei.com> <20180124112629.GA2339@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   Lihao Liang <lihao.liang@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 24 Jan 2018 17:15:30 +0000
Message-ID: <CAPtJFC+5UhHcce_3M5=CdNrD8nkfMnr_62U=Ej+hX6vokkQbBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 01/16] prcu: Add PRCU implementation
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     lianglihao <lianglihao@huawei.com>,
        Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "Guohanjun (Hanjun Guo)" <guohanjun@huawei.com>, heng.z@huawei.com,
        hb.chen@huawei.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Dear Peter,

Many thanks for your comments. I will provide a proper changelog.
Alternatively, the paper can be found at

http://ipads.se.sjtu.edu.cn/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=publications:consensus-tpds16.pdf

Best,
Lihao.

On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 11:26 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 03:59:26PM +0800, lianglihao@huawei.com wrote:
>> From: Heng Zhang <heng.z@huawei.com>
>>
>> This RCU implementation (PRCU) is based on a fast consensus protocol
>> published in the following paper:
>>
>> Fast Consensus Using Bounded Staleness for Scalable Read-mostly Synchronization.
>> Haibo Chen, Heng Zhang, Ran Liu, Binyu Zang, and Haibing Guan.
>> IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems (TPDS), 2016.
>> https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3024114.3024143
>
> That's an utterly useless changelog for something like a new RCU
> implementation.
>
> You fail to describe why you're proposing a new RCU implementation; what
> problems does it fix?, how is it better?
>
> All you provide is a paywalled link to some paper that we can't read.
>
> Please write a real changelog that describes things properly and
> provide, if at all possible, a readily accessible link to your paper.