Re: [PATCH V2 1/4] posix-timers: Make next_posix_timer_id an atomic_t

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Thu, Feb 20 2025 at 09:49, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 9:09 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > This allows the following patch to use RCU.
>>
>> Your patch ordering is slightly off by two :)
>>
>> And it fails to explain for what RCU can be used....
>
> This is explained in the following patches.

The changelog of a patch has to be self contained. The 'following patch'
has no meaning when the patch is merged.

> If I add nothing in the changelog, you complain the changelog is not
> explaining anything.
>
> I suggest you write the patches. because I feel a huge resistance,
> which I do not understand.

I'm just asking that I get properly written change logs which adhere to
the documented change log requirements.

How does that qualify as resistance?

Thanks,

        tglx