On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 1:31 AM Vlad Buslov [off-list ref] wrote:

On Fri 13 Jul 2018 at 21:51, Cong Wang [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 6:30 AM Vlad Buslov [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Fri 13 Jul 2018 at 03:52, Cong Wang [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 7:24 AM Vlad Buslov [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Implement functions to atomically update and free action cookie
using rcu mechanism.

Without stating any reason..... Is this even a changelog?

Yes, it is.

What do you expect in a changelog generally? Repeating what
your code does? Thanks but we don't even want to read any code
unless the need of this code is reasonably justified.

In my cover letter:
 - Motivation for patchset is presented in first paragraph.
 - Problems that prevent us from removing rtnl lock dependency are
 described, problem 3 is about cookie pointer.
 - In implementation section, point 3 presents solution for that
 problem.

Do you want to use cover letter as a changelog for all patches in
your patchset? Seriously? :)

Every patch is your patchset is unique, because you are not fixing
a problem can be expressed by a pattern.

Given how hard lockless is generally, probably you even can't
find out a pattern. If you really do, I am happy to learn!

quoted

Can we at least agree you have no justification for this change
in this changelog? Or you believe this patch is as trivial as
a white space change which doesn't need a justification?

Cong, from your last letter I understand that you want to have
justification specifically for using atomic operation in this particular
patch. I agree with you that I should have explained it in more details.
I found a lot of prior art for same or similar atomic ops usage for rcu
pointers(examples in my previous mail) and assumed it to be trivial, but
now I understand that I was wrong in this case.

Thanks for having an agreement!

I expect to see more detailed changelog in your future patches! :)