[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b54e18a9-582d-3619-773e-695dcf19eaad@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2023 13:39:00 +0100
From: Vineeth Vijayan <vneethv@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>,
Peter Oberparleiter <oberpar@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>,
Eric Farman <farman@...ux.ibm.com>,
Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com>,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] s390/cio: make sch->lock a spinlock (is a pointer)
On 11/1/23 12:57, Halil Pasic wrote:
> The lock member of struct subchannel used to be a spinlock, but became
> a pointer to a spinlock with commit 2ec2298412e1 ("[S390] subchannel
> lock conversion."). This might have been justified back then, but with
> the current state of affairs, there is no reason to manage a separate
> spinlock object.
>
> Let's simplify things and pull the spinlock back into struct subchannel.
>
> Signed-off-by: Halil Pasic<pasic@...ux.ibm.com>
> ---
> I know it is a lot of churn, but I do believe in the end it does make
> the code more maintainable.
You are right. Makes the code easy to read and a bit less complex.
Looks good to me. Thanks
Reviewed-by: Vineeth Vijayan <vneethv@...ux.ibm.com>
--snip--
Powered by blists - more mailing lists