[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJuCfpHxGfv8568Kvh784f2cc1XZQCi2Gv=9accf6T-3+GSoaA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2025 01:45:41 -0800
From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, peterz@...radead.org, liam.howlett@...cle.com,
lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com, david.laight.linux@...il.com, mhocko@...e.com,
vbabka@...e.cz, hannes@...xchg.org, mjguzik@...il.com, oliver.sang@...el.com,
mgorman@...hsingularity.net, david@...hat.com, peterx@...hat.com,
oleg@...hat.com, dave@...olabs.net, paulmck@...nel.org, brauner@...nel.org,
dhowells@...hat.com, hdanton@...a.com, hughd@...gle.com,
lokeshgidra@...gle.com, minchan@...gle.com, jannh@...gle.com,
shakeel.butt@...ux.dev, souravpanda@...gle.com, pasha.tatashin@...een.com,
klarasmodin@...il.com, richard.weiyang@...il.com, corbet@....net,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 00/17] reimplement per-vma lock as a refcount
On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 8:52 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 08:25:47PM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > - Added static check for no-limit case in __refcount_add_not_zero_limited,
> > per David Laight
>
> Ugh, no, don't listen to David.
I thought his suggestion to add a check which can be verified at
compile time made sense. Could you please explain why that's a bad
idea? I'm really curious.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists