On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 07:41:27PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Tue, 05 May 2020 15:16:09 +0200 > Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> 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.
