* [PATCH -next] staging: fwserial: Switch to kvfree_rcu() API
@ 2022-09-17 2:47 Shang XiaoJing
2022-09-17 8:21 ` Andy Shevchenko
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Shang XiaoJing @ 2022-09-17 2:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gregkh, andy.shevchenko, ilpo.jarvinen, linux-staging; +Cc: shangxiaojing
Instead of invoking a synchronize_rcu() to free a pointer after a grace
period, we can directly make use of new API that does the same but in
more efficient way.
Signed-off-by: Shang XiaoJing <shangxiaojing@huawei.com>
---
sorry, the previous same patch have the wrong v3 flag in subject.
---
drivers/staging/fwserial/fwserial.c | 3 +--
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/fwserial/fwserial.c b/drivers/staging/fwserial/fwserial.c
index 81b06d88ed0d..ac2d625f0883 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/fwserial/fwserial.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/fwserial/fwserial.c
@@ -2117,8 +2117,7 @@ static void fwserial_remove_peer(struct fwtty_peer *peer)
if (port)
fwserial_release_port(port, true);
- synchronize_rcu();
- kfree(peer);
+ kvfree_rcu(peer);
}
/**
--
2.17.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH -next] staging: fwserial: Switch to kvfree_rcu() API
2022-09-17 2:47 [PATCH -next] staging: fwserial: Switch to kvfree_rcu() API Shang XiaoJing
@ 2022-09-17 8:21 ` Andy Shevchenko
2022-09-19 1:43 ` shangxiaojing
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Andy Shevchenko @ 2022-09-17 8:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Shang XiaoJing; +Cc: gregkh, ilpo.jarvinen, linux-staging
On Sat, Sep 17, 2022 at 5:12 AM Shang XiaoJing <shangxiaojing@huawei.com> wrote:
>
> Instead of invoking a synchronize_rcu() to free a pointer after a grace
> period, we can directly make use of new API that does the same but in
a new
> more efficient way.
...
> sorry, the previous same patch have the wrong v3 flag in subject.
has
First of all, this brings even more confusion. Since the below needs
some work, we want to have a v4 with a proper changelog, explaining
also v1 and v3.
...
> - synchronize_rcu();
> - kfree(peer);
> + kvfree_rcu(peer);
This is not equivalent. The commit message doesn't explain why the "v"
variant is needed. So, shouldn't it be the plain kfree_rcu()?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH -next] staging: fwserial: Switch to kvfree_rcu() API
2022-09-17 8:21 ` Andy Shevchenko
@ 2022-09-19 1:43 ` shangxiaojing
2022-09-19 7:45 ` Andy Shevchenko
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: shangxiaojing @ 2022-09-19 1:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andy Shevchenko; +Cc: gregkh, ilpo.jarvinen, linux-staging
On 2022/9/17 16:21, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2022 at 5:12 AM Shang XiaoJing <shangxiaojing@huawei.com> wrote:
>> Instead of invoking a synchronize_rcu() to free a pointer after a grace
>> period, we can directly make use of new API that does the same but in
> a new
>
>> more efficient way.
> ...
>
>> sorry, the previous same patch have the wrong v3 flag in subject.
> has
>
> First of all, this brings even more confusion. Since the below needs
> some work, we want to have a v4 with a proper changelog, explaining
> also v1 and v3.
Ok, I 'll figure out a more clear changelog.
Besides, v3 is my miss, please ignore it, next patch will be v2.
>
> ...
>
>> - synchronize_rcu();
>> - kfree(peer);
>> + kvfree_rcu(peer);
> This is not equivalent. The commit message doesn't explain why the "v"
> variant is needed. So, shouldn't it be the plain kfree_rcu()?
kfree_rcu() is defined as kvfree_rcu(), which will free the pointer with the
corresponding way(use is_vmalloc_addr() to determine vfree or kfree). For
clearlity, kfree_rcu() is a better way, will be fixed in patch v2.
Thanks :-),
Shang XiaoJing
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH -next] staging: fwserial: Switch to kvfree_rcu() API
2022-09-19 1:43 ` shangxiaojing
@ 2022-09-19 7:45 ` Andy Shevchenko
2022-09-19 7:50 ` shangxiaojing
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Andy Shevchenko @ 2022-09-19 7:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: shangxiaojing; +Cc: gregkh, ilpo.jarvinen, linux-staging
On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 4:43 AM shangxiaojing <shangxiaojing@huawei.com> wrote:
> On 2022/9/17 16:21, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 17, 2022 at 5:12 AM Shang XiaoJing <shangxiaojing@huawei.com> wrote:
...
> > First of all, this brings even more confusion. Since the below needs
> > some work, we want to have a v4 with a proper changelog, explaining
> > also v1 and v3.
>
> Ok, I 'll figure out a more clear changelog.
>
> Besides, v3 is my miss, please ignore it, next patch will be v2.
Versioning should go only one direction. You confuse people with your
versioning schema.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH -next] staging: fwserial: Switch to kvfree_rcu() API
2022-09-19 7:45 ` Andy Shevchenko
@ 2022-09-19 7:50 ` shangxiaojing
2022-09-19 8:27 ` Andy Shevchenko
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: shangxiaojing @ 2022-09-19 7:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andy Shevchenko; +Cc: gregkh, ilpo.jarvinen, linux-staging
On 2022/9/19 15:45, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 4:43 AM shangxiaojing <shangxiaojing@huawei.com> wrote:
>> On 2022/9/17 16:21, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Sat, Sep 17, 2022 at 5:12 AM Shang XiaoJing <shangxiaojing@huawei.com> wrote:
> ...
>
>>> First of all, this brings even more confusion. Since the below needs
>>> some work, we want to have a v4 with a proper changelog, explaining
>>> also v1 and v3.
>> Ok, I 'll figure out a more clear changelog.
>>
>> Besides, v3 is my miss, please ignore it, next patch will be v2.
> Versioning should go only one direction. You confuse people with your
> versioning schema.
Should I send the sent patch "[PATCH -next v2] staging: fwserial: Switch
to kfree_rcu() API" again as v4?
Thanks,
Shang XiaoJing
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH -next] staging: fwserial: Switch to kvfree_rcu() API
2022-09-19 7:50 ` shangxiaojing
@ 2022-09-19 8:27 ` Andy Shevchenko
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Andy Shevchenko @ 2022-09-19 8:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: shangxiaojing; +Cc: gregkh, ilpo.jarvinen, linux-staging
On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 10:50 AM shangxiaojing <shangxiaojing@huawei.com> wrote:
> On 2022/9/19 15:45, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 4:43 AM shangxiaojing <shangxiaojing@huawei.com> wrote:
> >> On 2022/9/17 16:21, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >>> On Sat, Sep 17, 2022 at 5:12 AM Shang XiaoJing <shangxiaojing@huawei.com> wrote:
...
> >>> First of all, this brings even more confusion. Since the below needs
> >>> some work, we want to have a v4 with a proper changelog, explaining
> >>> also v1 and v3.
> >> Ok, I 'll figure out a more clear changelog.
> >>
> >> Besides, v3 is my miss, please ignore it, next patch will be v2.
> > Versioning should go only one direction. You confuse people with your
> > versioning schema.
>
> Should I send the sent patch "[PATCH -next v2] staging: fwserial: Switch
> to kfree_rcu() API" again as v4?
Yes, and explain in the changelog all of the previous ones, like
v3: the first version of the patch
v1: v3 resent as v1
v2: changed kv... to k...
v4: resend as v4 to avoid versioning confusion
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-09-19 8:27 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2022-09-17 2:47 [PATCH -next] staging: fwserial: Switch to kvfree_rcu() API Shang XiaoJing
2022-09-17 8:21 ` Andy Shevchenko
2022-09-19 1:43 ` shangxiaojing
2022-09-19 7:45 ` Andy Shevchenko
2022-09-19 7:50 ` shangxiaojing
2022-09-19 8:27 ` Andy Shevchenko
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.