From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0014.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA3C3242D84; Thu, 6 Nov 2025 17:10:15 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=216.40.44.14 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1762449019; cv=none; b=KpzoCrEut02460JsGDRWUDqxQ91q54616P0e0NwYzGqNi1V7UdKpbrOvN5jbLrtOGiGZ6S59HQfAxxc4kDW11LOCR1DfS+xhTjQLcsqBuLmPSqEeSeiQ3wNemMi2eB6CaFWGkmy2AW0UQo9ekYdI8XzgfipkjnzDr7RU7lbo8oQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1762449019; c=relaxed/simple; bh=5ucxmab8Lnmq1UWSzk6BYjvOan85ga1kRoY9hCZvgTc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=S8vtTtm/7eZb5WgEfcT3/ZFmRHMFCm8gqUZ/isi0SK/RWuIMGEnxZqRTDur1H1UbslpfCDWuU8zj0ZYpRU8uY4fihsZU3swWk4vtOWKx7gZFVXdorldq4iV0YDo7pPnIMB1loKiBTuhmz21OvBBgZao93qj4qnIv5sud3CVLG2E= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=goodmis.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=goodmis.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=216.40.44.14 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=goodmis.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=goodmis.org Received: from omf08.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BD19535C5; Thu, 6 Nov 2025 17:10:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [HIDDEN] (Authenticated sender: rostedt@goodmis.org) by omf08.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 76FB020029; Thu, 6 Nov 2025 17:10:06 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2025 12:10:05 -0500 From: Steven Rostedt To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: rcu@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com, Mathieu Desnoyers , Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , bpf@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/16] tracing: Guard __DECLARE_TRACE() use of __DO_TRACE_CALL() with SRCU-fast Message-ID: <20251106121005.76087677@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <522b01cf-0cb6-4766-9102-2d08a3983d8a@paulmck-laptop> References: <20251105203216.2701005-10-paulmck@kernel.org> <20251106110230.08e877ff@batman.local.home> <522b01cf-0cb6-4766-9102-2d08a3983d8a@paulmck-laptop> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.20.0git84 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 76FB020029 X-Stat-Signature: g9ewkjshygs6urjbmnzwhwe413z4pszx X-Rspamd-Server: rspamout06 X-Session-Marker: 726F737465647440676F6F646D69732E6F7267 X-Session-ID: U2FsdGVkX19lvO1dk902l+gpXe7PJIH/wgh8D4MBBBI= X-HE-Tag: 1762449006-740227 X-HE-Meta: U2FsdGVkX195THmePf1i2pCYkYQF/PnTwlzGgMWbfGrHan8pKMbnvuQeaBh6mU2eSLIL0ZV1fgCFYt9ainwuzOgvvvpplR9QX85CjoZY609kzMbskj3jq7OeFdzSlOwHUSONfwHe2caR8qAyEIQrc46kskBfu2RKN8R/bxIGIL+dicleTaPuU/Cp/bAvjCEjVRfoqZkY25NVT7aiRX+Bwo+nHsx3Z56IGLptAf40JYyenFgtVSbqYXpyYMjzi1UQ56Jc9PBvJHiSBYR4I9ADSFtKI+pS5npU9hWNXL77gYuvOMMt9Ie2BYLVTNzKDHyH6qTqIdqxA+ws6MXguvZ1w627PipE42cI On Thu, 6 Nov 2025 09:01:30 -0800 "Paul E. McKenney" wrote: > On Thu, Nov 06, 2025 at 11:02:30AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Wed, 5 Nov 2025 12:32:10 -0800 > > "Paul E. McKenney" wrote: > > > > > > The current commit can be thought of as an approximate revert of that > > > commit, with some compensating additions of preemption disabling pointed > > > out by Steven Rostedt (thank you, Steven!). This preemption disabling > > > > > uses guard(preempt_notrace)(), and while in the area a couple of other > > > use cases were also converted to guards. > > > > Actually, please don't do any conversions. That code is unrelated to > > this work and I may be touching it. I don't need unneeded conflicts. > > OK, thank you for letting me know. Should I set up for the merge window > after this coming one (of course applying your feedback below), or will > you be making this safe for PREEMPT_RT as part of your work? Just don't convert the open coded preempt_disable() to a guard(). That's the code I plan on touching. The rest is fine (with my suggestions ;-) -- Steve