On Thu 2019-09-05 12:11:01, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > [ Added Ted and Linux Plumbers ] > > On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 17:38:21 +0200 (CEST) > Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> wrote: > > > On Thu, 5 Sep 2019, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 03:05:13PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > > > > The alternative lockless approach is still more complicated than > > > > the serialized one. But I think that it is manageable thanks to > > > > the simplified state tracking. And I might safe use some pain > > > > in the long term. > > > > > > I've not looked at it yet, sorry. But per the above argument of needing > > > the CPU serialization _anyway_, I don't see a compelling reason not to > > > use it. > > > > > > It is simple, it works. Let's use it. > > > > > > If you really fancy a multi-writer buffer, you can always switch to one > > > later, if you can convince someone it actually brings benefits and not > > > just head-aches. > > > > Can we please grab one of the TBD slots at kernel summit next week, sit > > down in a room and hash that out? > > > > We should definitely be able to find a room that will be available next > week.
Sounds great. I am blocked only during Livepatching miniconference that is scheduled on Wednesday, Sep 11 at 15:00 (basically the very last slot). Best Regards, Petr