[+CC Frederic]
Hi Joel and Neeraj,
Belated drive-by review. Please see below.
On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 16:01:50 -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> Just a repost of patches with tags, for our consideration into v6.17.
>
> All have tags, and the last commit is a fixup for the deadloop patch which can
> be squashed into the original patch.
>
> Joel Fernandes (6):
> smp: Document preemption and stop_machine() mutual exclusion
> rcu: Refactor expedited handling check in rcu_read_unlock_special()
> rcu: Document GP init vs hotplug-scan ordering requirements
> rcu: Document separation of rcu_state and rnp's gp_seq
> rcu: Document concurrent quiescent state reporting for offline CPUs
> [please squash] fixup! rcu: Fix rcu_read_unlock() deadloop due to IRQ
> work
There seems to be a couple of issues in the S-O-B chains of commits listed
below (in rcu/next):
* dcf1668449c9 ("rcu: Document GP init vs hotplug-scan ordering requirements")
* bb1c373934db ("rcu: Document concurrent quiescent state reporting for
offline CPUs")
They have a "Co-developed-by:" tag without a corresponding "Signed-off-by:"
tag [1].
Or, if the contribution is too minor to have a "Signed-off-by:",
then a "Suggested-by:" tag with a "Link:" to the relevant message should
suffice.
I have no idea which approach suits better in each commit above.
[1]: Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
section "When to use Acked-by:, Cc:, and Co-developed-by:"
Quoting relevant paragraph:
Co-developed-by: states that the patch was co-created by multiple developers;
it is used to give attribution to co-authors (in addition to the author
attributed by the From: tag) when several people work on a single patch.
Since
Co-developed-by: denotes authorship, every Co-developed-by: must be
immediately
followed by a Signed-off-by: of the associated co-author. Standard sign-off
procedure applies, i.e. the ordering of Signed-off-by: tags should reflect the
chronological history of the patch insofar as possible, regardless of whether
the author is attributed via From: or Co-developed-by:. Notably, the last
Signed-off-by: must always be that of the developer submitting the patch.
Side note:
scripts/checkpatch.pl would have complained about those missing
Signed-off-by: tags.
>
> .../Data-Structures/Data-Structures.rst | 32 +++++
> .../RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.rst | 128 ++++++++++++++++++
I'm seeing sub-optimal uses of reST markups in Requirements.rst from kernel
documentation stand point.
I'm going to submit a patch or two to improve them, but I can't promise when.
They will likely be only cosmetic cleanups and I'm OK with it upstreamed as
it is.
Thanks, Akira
> kernel/rcu/tree.c | 31 ++++-
> kernel/rcu/tree.h | 10 +-
> kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h | 90 ++++++++++--
> kernel/smp.c | 26 ++--
> 6 files changed, 293 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 2.34.1
