[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z5qPj1P6ymCbvJSK@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2025 10:29:03 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 5/6] kernfs: Use RCU to access kernfs_node::parent.
On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 09:26:14PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
...
> > Hmm... I would have gone with using the same accessor everywhere but am not
> > sure how strongly I feel about it. I don't think it's useful to worry about
> > the overhead of the extra lockdep annotations in debug builds. Ignoring that
> > and just considering code readability, what would you do?
>
> It is your call. I would prefer to open code that part that we do only
> rely on RCU here but sure understand that you don't care about the
> details and want to have only one accessor.
It's kinda nitpicky. Let's just keep what you did.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists