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 14:18:18 -0400
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, 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 Mackerras <paulus@ozlabs.org>, rcu@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/5] Remove some notrace RCU APIs
Message-ID: <20190525181818.GA225569@google.com>
References: <20190524234933.5133-1-joel@joelfernandes.org>
 <20190524232458.4bcf4eb4@gandalf.local.home>
 <20190525081444.GC197789@google.com>
 <20190525070826.16f76ee7@gandalf.local.home>
 <20190525141954.GA176647@google.com>
 <20190525155035.GE28207@linux.ibm.com>
 <20190525181407.GA220326@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190525181407.GA220326@google.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 02:14:07PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
[snip]
> > That aside, if we are going to change the name of an API that is
> > used 160 places throughout the tree, we would need to have a pretty
> > good justification.  Without such a justification, it will just look
> > like pointless churn to the various developers and maintainers on the
> > receiving end of the patches.
> 
> Actually, the API name change is not something I want to do, it is Steven
> suggestion. My suggestion is let us just delete _raw_notrace and just use the
> _raw API for tracing, since _raw doesn't do any tracing anyway. Steve pointed
> that _raw_notrace does sparse checking unlike _raw, but I think that isn't an
> issue since _raw doesn't do such checking at the moment anyway.. (if possible
> check my cover letter again for details/motivation of this series).

Come to think of it, if we/I succeed in adding lockdep checking in _raw, then
we can just keep the current APIs and not delete anything. And we can have
_raw_notrace skip the lockdep checks. The sparse check question would still
be an open one though, since _raw doesn't do sparse checks at the moment
unlike _raw_notrace as Steve pointed.

Thanks,

 - Joel