[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1507769672.21121.192.camel@surriel.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 20:54:32 -0400
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Gargi Sharma <gs051095@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, julia.lawall@...6.fr,
mingo@...nel.org, pasha.tatashin@...cle.com, ktkhai@...tuozzo.com,
oleg@...hat.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com, hch@...radead.org,
lkp@...el.com, tony.luck@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] pid: Replace pid bitmap implementation with IDR
API
On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 15:37 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 18:19:38 -0400 Gargi Sharma <gs051095@...il.com>
> wrote:
>
> > This patch replaces the current bitmap implemetation for
> > Process ID allocation. Functions that are no longer required,
> > for example, free_pidmap(), alloc_pidmap(), etc. are removed.
> > The rest of the functions are modified to use the IDR API.
> > The change was made to make the PID allocation less complex by
> > replacing custom code with calls to generic API.
>
> I still don't understand the locking. spin_lock_irq(&pidmap_lock) in
> some places, rcu_read_lock() in others.
>
> If the locking is indeed now correct, can we please get it fully
> documented? A comment at the pid_namespace.idr definition site would
> suit.
Would you like me to send a follow-up patch to document the
locking?
Documenting the locking on all the existing code, plus the
new code, seems a little out of scope of an Outreachy
internship...
--
All Rights Reversed.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists