Re: [patch V4 part 1 07/36] locking/atomics: Flip fallbacks and instrumentation

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 07:41:27PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 05 May 2020 15:16:09 +0200
> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Currently instrumentation of atomic primitives is done at the
> > architecture level, while composites or fallbacks are provided at the
> > generic level.
> > 
> > The result is that there are no uninstrumented variants of the
> > fallbacks. Since there is now need of such (see the next patch),
> 
> Just a comment on the change log. Can we avoid saying "see the next patch"?
> A few years from now, if we stumble on changes in this commit and need to
> see that next patch, if something happened to lore, it may be difficult to
> find what that next patch was.

Even I can get git-log to tell me what the next patch is, and I'm an
absolute disaster with git. But yes, valid point.

> But saying that patch's subject, would be
> just a simple search in the git history.
> 
> That said, looking at "the next patch" which is "x86/doublefault: Remove
> memmove() call", does that patch really have a need for such?

No, the next patch was part4-2, so it already isn't accurate.