Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Sat, 10 Dec 2022 13:34:25 -0500
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Karol Herbst <karolherbst@gmail.com>,
        Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen@gmail.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Subject: Re: [for-next][PATCH 13/25] x86/mm/kmmio: Use
 rcu_read_lock_sched_notrace()
Message-ID: <20221210133425.4657985e@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <20221210174753.GD4001@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
References: <20221210135750.425719934@goodmis.org>
        <20221210135825.241167123@goodmis.org>
        <20221210174753.GD4001@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, 10 Dec 2022 09:47:53 -0800
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote:

> > Note, the preempt_disable() is still needed as it uses preempt_enable_no_resched().
> > 

 ...

> Executable code can be the best form of comment.  ;-)
> 
> This does mess with preempt_count() redundantly, but the overhead from
> that should be way down in the noise.

I was going to remove it, but then I realized that it would be a functional
change, as from the comment above, it uses "preempt_enable_no_resched(),
which there is not a rcu_read_unlock_sched() variant.

> 
> Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>

Thanks! I'll add this to the commit.

-- Steve