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:   Tue, 20 Aug 2019 07:44:07 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
Cc:     "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rcu@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -rcu dev 1/3] rcu/tree: tick_dep_set/clear_cpu should
 accept bits instead of masks
Message-ID: <20190820144407.GM28441@linux.ibm.com>
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.ibm.com
References: <20190816025311.241257-1-joel@joelfernandes.org>
 <20190819123837.GC27088@lenoir>
 <20190819144632.GW28441@linux.ibm.com>
 <20190819163226.GE27088@lenoir>
 <20190819164420.GA28441@linux.ibm.com>
 <20190820120843.GA2093@lenoir>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190820120843.GA2093@lenoir>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 02:08:45PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 09:44:20AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 06:32:27PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > > But would the following patch make sense?  This would not help for (say)
> > > > use of TICK_MASK_BIT_POSIX_TIMER instead of TICK_DEP_BIT_POSIX_TIMER, but
> > > > would help for any new values that might be added later on.  And currently
> > > > for TICK_DEP_MASK_CLOCK_UNSTABLE and TICK_DEP_MASK_RCU.
> > > 
> > > I'd rather make the TICK_DEP_MASK_* values private to kernel/time/tick-sched.c but
> > > that means I need to re-arrange a bit include/trace/events/timer.h
> > 
> > That would be even better!  For one thing, it would detect misuse of
> > -all- of the _MASK_ values.  ;-)
> 
> :o)
> 
> > 
> > > I'm looking into it. Meanwhile, your below patch that checks for the max value is
> > > still valuable.
> > 
> > If I were to push it, it would be v5.5 before it showed up.  My guess
> > is therefore that I should keep it for my own internal use in the near
> > term, but not push it.  If you would like to take it, feel free to use
> > my Signed-off-by.
> 
> Ok, applying.

Thank you, Frederic!

							Thanx, Paul