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:   Wed, 20 Mar 2019 13:41:09 +0800
From:   Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
To:     NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>
Cc:     Thomas Graf <tgraf@suug.ch>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] rhashtable: use cmpxchg() in nested_table_alloc()
Message-ID: <20190320054109.6abodcm4yyhacc5w@gondor.apana.org.au>
References: <155253979234.5022.1840929790507376038.stgit@noble.brown>
 <155253992824.5022.10318044793639169265.stgit@noble.brown>
 <20190315051029.waqb3ohztl7w6zep@gondor.apana.org.au>
 <87lg1gocj8.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87lg1gocj8.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 05:51:55PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
>
> I hoped the patch could be justified on the basis that the current
> behaviour is fragile - the dependency that a single spin lock covers a
> while slot (and all children) in the top-level nested table is not at
> all obvious.
> 
> I do have a stronger reason though - I want the replace the spinlocks
> with bit-spin-locks.  With those we will only hold a lock for the
> particular chain being worked on.  If you need that extra explanation to
> justify the patch, I'll hold it over until the other two patches land
> and the rest of the bit-spin-lock series is ready.

I think it would make more sense to combine this patch with your
bit-spin-lock patch in a series.

Thanks,
-- 
Email: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt