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;
Date:   Thu, 8 Mar 2018 12:45:24 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
        Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@kvack.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Simplifying our RCU models
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
References: <20180305001600.GO3918@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <CA+55aFyOi1XnSqHtg=VfcUiBL+egNL==NRX1Zaeihe8W5OJVgw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180305030949.GP3918@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20180305082441.4hao2z4dqn2n5on6@gmail.com>
 <87po4izj67.fsf_-_@xmission.com>
 <20180305161446.GQ3918@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20180306084738.tcs4ggbby77phlbh@gmail.com>
 <20180306203906.GA3918@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20180307155444.GA10367@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <CA+55aFzyycJWD2xuo7wSptJ=D045yiZnmO+7iY6CapDvge_uCw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFzyycJWD2xuo7wSptJ=D045yiZnmO+7iY6CapDvge_uCw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Message-Id: <20180308204524.GW3918@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 10:48:50AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 7:54 AM, Paul E. McKenney
> <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > Ah, and any thoughts on how best to get feedback from the various people
> > who would need to reprogram their fingers?  Or is everyone already on
> > board with changing these various names?
> 
> I really would prefer to not see massive re-naming unless there is a
> really good reason for it.
> 
> I'm all for simplifying RCU from a million different versions down to
> just a few thousand, but I'm definitely not convinced we want to do
> any search-and-replace.

I am currently in the design (more accurately, reredesign phase) for
the simplification.  It is quite possible that there is a good reason
for at least some renaming, but in that case, I would come back later
with that as a separate proposal.

							Thanx, Paul