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 21:25:29 -0400 (EDT)
From:   Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
To:     rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc:     "Joel Fernandes, Google" <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
        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>
Message-ID: <1209741234.23376.1566005129181.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
In-Reply-To: <20190816164912.078b6e01@oasis.local.home>
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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Fix: trace sched switch start/stop racy updates
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Thread-Topic: trace sched switch start/stop racy updates
Thread-Index: nbfLwy+5lp4uRgruZUREyYMsesqZmA==
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

----- On Aug 16, 2019, at 4:49 PM, rostedt rostedt@goodmis.org 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.

Splitting this into two separate patches makes perfect sense.

Thanks,

Mathieu

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com