[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20241130224419.80c06e9458defceb2a4949ec@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2024 22:44:19 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, Wei Yang
<richard.weiyang@...il.com>, andrii@...nel.org, jannh@...gle.com,
Liam.Howlett@...cle.com, lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com, vbabka@...e.cz,
mhocko@...nel.org, shakeel.butt@...ux.dev, hannes@...xchg.org,
david@...hat.com, willy@...radead.org, brauner@...nel.org, oleg@...hat.com,
arnd@...db.de, zhangpeng.00@...edance.com, linmiaohe@...wei.com,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, hca@...ux.ibm.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] mm: introduce
mmap_lock_speculate_{try_begin|retry}
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 17:53:57 +0100 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 08:18:38AM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
>
> > > >+static inline bool mmap_lock_speculate_retry(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned int seq)
> > > >+{
> > > >+ return do_read_seqcount_retry(&mm->mm_lock_seq, seq);
> > >
> > > Just curious why we don't use read_seqcount_retry().
> > >
> > > Looks this is the only user outside seqlock.h.
> >
> > Ah, good eye! read_seqcount_retry() would be better.
> >
> > Peter, do you want me to post a new patchset or you can patch it when
> > picking it up?
>
> Fixed up my local copy, thanks!
I take this to mean that you'll be merging these. I don't see this
series in -next and I'm sitting on the v1 series, which I shall now
drop.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists