On Thu, 5 Jul 2018 17:12:36 +0200 Manfred Spraul <manfred@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Dmitry,
On 07/05/2018 10:36 AM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> [...]
> Hi Manfred,
>
> The series looks like a significant improvement to me. Thanks!
>
> I feel that this code can be further simplified (unless I am missing
> something here). Please take a look at this version:
>
> https://github.com/dvyukov/linux/commit/f77aeaf80f3c4ab524db92184d874b03063fea3a?diff=split
>
> This is on top of your patches. It basically does the same as your
> code, but consolidates all id/seq assignment and dealing with next_id,
> and deduplicates code re CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE. Currently it's a
> bit tricky to follow e.g. where exactly next_id is consumed and where
> it needs to be left intact.
> The only difference is that my code assigns new->id earlier. Not sure
> if it can lead to anything bad. But if yes, then it seems that
> currently uninitialized new->id is exposed. If necessary (?) we could
> reset new->id in the same place where we set new->deleted.
Everything looks correct for me, it is better than the current code.
Except that you didn't sign off your last patch.
As next step: Who can merge the patches towards linux-next?
Me.
But it's unclear which patchset we're talking about. What's the plan
here? To combine both efforts?