From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750807AbeFABmO (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 May 2018 21:42:14 -0400 Received: from lgeamrelo11.lge.com ([156.147.23.51]:57120 "EHLO lgeamrelo11.lge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750711AbeFABmN (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 May 2018 21:42:13 -0400 X-Original-SENDERIP: 156.147.1.127 X-Original-MAILFROM: byungchul.park@lge.com X-Original-SENDERIP: 10.177.220.135 X-Original-MAILFROM: byungchul.park@lge.com Subject: Re: [RFC] rcu: Check the range of jiffies_till_xxx_fqs on setting them To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: jiangshanlai@gmail.com, josh@joshtriplett.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@lge.com, joel@joelfernandes.org References: <1527578616-5595-1-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com> <20180529120155.GC3803@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <07271222-2e1d-2dc8-1648-4c53d710a092@lge.com> <3d2d8dec-445a-da31-dbe0-34b2331523ed@lge.com> <20180531111742.GQ7063@linux.vnet.ibm.com> From: Byungchul Park Message-ID: <7054f182-2648-983d-3602-e69ea36f90f6@lge.com> Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2018 10:42:10 +0900 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180531111742.GQ7063@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2018-05-31 20:17, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 11:51:40AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: >> On 2018-05-31 11:18, Byungchul Park wrote: >>> On 2018-05-29 21:01, Paul E. McKenney wrote: >>> >>>> One approach would be to embed the kernel_params_ops structure inside >>>> another structure containing the limits, then just have two structures. >>>> Perhaps something like this already exists?  I don't see it right off, >>>> but then again, I am not exactly an expert on module_param. >>>> >>>> Thoughts? >>> >>> Unfortunately, I couldn't find it. There might be no way to verify >>> range of a variable except the way I did. Could you give your opinion >>> about whether I should go on it? >> >> Like.. > > This looks reasonable to me. Although you could make something that took > ranges, that would be more code than what you have below, so what you Exactly. > have below is good. Could you please resend as a patch with Signed-off-by > and commit log? Sure, I will. Thanks a lot Paul. -- Thanks, Byungchul