Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 19 May 2020 19:57:22 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <20200519.195722.1091264300612213554.davem@davemloft.net>
To:     tglx@linutronix.de
Cc:     stephen@networkplumber.org, a.darwish@linutronix.de,
        peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, will@kernel.org,
        paulmck@kernel.org, bigeasy@linutronix.de, rostedt@goodmis.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kuba@kernel.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 01/25] net: core: device_rename: Use rwsem instead
 of a seqcount
From:   David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
In-Reply-To: <87lfln5w61.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
References: <87v9kr5zt7.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
        <20200519161141.5fbab730@hermes.lan>
        <87lfln5w61.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 01:42:30 +0200

> Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org> writes:
>> On Wed, 20 May 2020 00:23:48 +0200
>> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
>>> No. We did not. -ENOTESTCASE
>>
>> Please try, it isn't that hard..
>>
>> # time for ((i=0;i<1000;i++)); do ip li add dev dummy$i type dummy; done
>>
>> real	0m17.002s
>> user	0m1.064s
>> sys	0m0.375s
> 
> And that solves the incorrectness of the current code in which way?

You mentioned that there wasn't a test case, he gave you one to try.