[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171215184256.GA27160@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 10:42:56 -0800
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Wei Wang <wei.w.wang@...el.com>
Cc: virtio-dev@...ts.oasis-open.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
qemu-devel@...gnu.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, mst@...hat.com,
mhocko@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mawilcox@...rosoft.com, david@...hat.com,
penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp, cornelia.huck@...ibm.com,
mgorman@...hsingularity.net, aarcange@...hat.com,
amit.shah@...hat.com, pbonzini@...hat.com,
liliang.opensource@...il.com, yang.zhang.wz@...il.com,
quan.xu@...yun.com, nilal@...hat.com, riel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v19 3/7] xbitmap: add more operations
On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 07:55:55PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> +int xb_preload_and_set_bit(struct xb *xb, unsigned long bit, gfp_t gfp);
I'm struggling to understand when one would use this. The xb_ API
requires you to handle your own locking. But specifying GFP flags
here implies you can sleep. So ... um ... there's no locking?
> +void xb_clear_bit_range(struct xb *xb, unsigned long start, unsigned long end);
That's xb_zero() which you deleted with the previous patch ... remember,
keep things as close as possible to the bitmap API.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists