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:   Sat, 25 May 2019 07:08:26 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To:     Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>, kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@ozlabs.org>, rcu@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/5] Remove some notrace RCU APIs
Message-ID: <20190525070826.16f76ee7@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <20190525081444.GC197789@google.com>
References: <20190524234933.5133-1-joel@joelfernandes.org>
        <20190524232458.4bcf4eb4@gandalf.local.home>
        <20190525081444.GC197789@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, 25 May 2019 04:14:44 -0400
Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org> wrote:

> > I guess the difference between the _raw_notrace and just _raw variants
> > is that _notrace ones do a rcu_check_sparse(). Don't we want to keep
> > that check?  
> 
> This is true.
> 
> Since the users of _raw_notrace are very few, is it worth keeping this API
> just for sparse checking? The API naming is also confusing. I was expecting
> _raw_notrace to do fewer checks than _raw, instead of more. Honestly, I just
> want to nuke _raw_notrace as done in this series and later we can introduce a
> sparse checking version of _raw if need-be. The other option could be to
> always do sparse checking for _raw however that used to be the case and got
> changed in http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-afs/2016-July/001016.html

What if we just rename _raw to _raw_nocheck, and _raw_notrace to _raw ?

-- Steve