Re: [PATCH -next v3 0/3] rcu/nocb: Cleanup patches for next merge window

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>]

On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 02:50:54PM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> 
> 
> On 1/21/2026 2:41 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 02:13:56PM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 1/21/2026 2:09 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 06:12:20PM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> >>>> These are a few nocb related cleanup patches for the next merge window.
> >>>>
> >>>> Also Frederic please object to the second patch ("Remove dead callback overload
> >>>> handling") if you would like, but I think based on our discussion I have
> >>>> implemented your suggestion, so it should be good.
> >>>>
> >>>> Changes from v2:
> >>>> - Dropped patch 2 "Add warning if no rcuog wake up attempt happened during
> >>>>   overload" as it was not needed since we removed the dead CB overload handling.
> >>>> - Replaced "Add warning to detect if overload advancement is ever useful" with
> >>>>   "Remove dead callback overload handling" per Frederic's feedback - instead of
> >>>>   adding a warning, just remove the dead code path entirely.
> >>>>
> >>>> nocb rcutorture scenarios passed overnight testing on my system.
> >>>
> >>> I reverted three of your earlier patches in order to apply this, only
> >>> one of which I am really confident in.  Please check my -rcu tree to see
> >>> if any of the three should be added back in, and I am starting tests in
> >>> the meantime.Age	Commit message (Expand)	Author	Files	Lines
> >>
> >> Per your latest /dev branch
> >> (https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/linux-rcu.git/log/?h=dev),
> >> you have the latest 3 patches:
> >>
> >> Extract nocb_defer_wakeup_cancel() helperdev	Joel Fernandes	1	-8/+11
> >> rcu/nocb: Remove dead callback overload handling	Joel Fernandes	1	-12/+0
> >> rcu/nocb: Remove unnecessary WakeOvfIsDeferred wake path	Joel Fernandes	3	-36/+18
> > 
> > Thank you for checking!
> > 
> > And just to double-check, all of the patches that I reverted are obsolete,
> > correct?
> 
> Yes, those patches were from v2. You have correctly applied the latest v3 version.

Woo-hoo!!!  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul