[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241017062343.81825-1-lizhe.67@bytedance.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2024 14:23:43 +0800
From: lizhe.67@...edance.com
To: willy@...radead.org
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
boqun.feng@...il.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org,
lizhe.67@...edance.com,
longman@...hat.com,
mingo@...hat.com,
peterz@...radead.org,
will@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] rwsem: introduce upgrade_read interface
On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 12:49:44 +0100, willy@...radead.org wrote:
>On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 12:35:59PM +0800, lizhe.67@...edance.com wrote:
>> +++ b/include/linux/rwsem.h
>> @@ -249,6 +249,7 @@ DEFINE_GUARD_COND(rwsem_write, _try, down_write_trylock(_T))
>> * downgrade write lock to read lock
>> */
>> extern void downgrade_write(struct rw_semaphore *sem);
>> +extern int upgrade_read(struct rw_semaphore *sem);
>
>This needs __must_check, and I think this should be a bool, not an errno
>return.
I can't agree more. I will fix it in v2.
Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists