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:   Fri, 16 Aug 2019 16:59:57 -0400
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc:     Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        paulmck <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Fix: trace sched switch start/stop racy updates
Message-ID: <20190816205957.GG10481@google.com>
References: <241506096.21688.1565977319832.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1908161505400.1525-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
 <CAEXW_YQrh42N5bYMmQJCFb6xa0nwXH8jmZMEAnGVBMjGF8wR1Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190816164912.078b6e01@oasis.local.home>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190816164912.078b6e01@oasis.local.home>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 04:49:12PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 16:44:10 -0400
> Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> > I am also more on the side of using *_ONCE. To me, by principal, I
> > would be willing to convert any concurrent plain access using _ONCE,
> > just so we don't have to worry about it now or in the future and also
> > documents the access.
> > 
> > Perhaps the commit message can be reworded to mention that the _ONCE
> > is an additional clean up for safe access.
> 
> The most I'll take is two separate patches. One is going to be marked
> for stable as it fixes a real bug. The other is more for cosmetic or
> theoretical issues, that I will state clearly "NOT FOR STABLE", such
> that the autosel doesn't take them.

Makes sense to me!

thanks,

 - Joel