[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wg8wvB4vo-PaCSMSRaCd2c+rk8OnE72eF+skDVMdk9LsA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2022 08:35:13 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
bristot@...hat.com, vschneid@...hat.com, ast@...nel.org,
daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org, martin.lau@...nel.org,
joshdon@...gle.com, brho@...gle.com, pjt@...gle.com,
derkling@...gle.com, haoluo@...gle.com, dvernet@...a.com,
dschatzberg@...a.com, dskarlat@...cmu.edu, riel@...riel.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...a.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/31] rhashtable: Allow rhashtable to be used from
irq-safe contexts
On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 12:23 AM Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
>
>
> static inline void rht_lock(struct bucket_table *tbl,
> - struct rhash_lock_head __rcu **bkt)
> + struct rhash_lock_head __rcu **bkt,
> + unsigned long *flags)
I guess it doesn't matter as long as this actually gets inlined, but
wouldn't it be better to have
flags = rht_lock(..);
...
rht_unlock(.., flags);
as the calling convention? Rather than passing a pointer to the stack around.
That's what the native _raw_spin_lock_irqsave() interface is (even if
"spin_lock_irqsave()" itself for historical reasons uses that inline
asm-like "pass argument by reference *without* using a pointer")
And gaah, we should have made 'flags' be a real type long ago, but I
guess 'unsigned long' is too ingrained and traditional to change that
now.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists