[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z_F4kdnCHY-Xkzyg@boqun-archlinux>
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2025 11:38:09 -0700
From: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Andrew Ballance <andrewjballance@...il.com>, Liam.Howlett@...cle.com,
ojeda@...nel.org, alex.gaynor@...il.com, gary@...yguo.net,
bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com, benno.lossin@...ton.me,
a.hindborg@...nel.org, aliceryhl@...gle.com, tmgross@...ch.edu,
dakr@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, wedsonaf@...il.com, brauner@...nel.org,
dingxiangfei2009@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
maple-tree@...ts.infradead.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] maple_tree: add __mtree_insert_range function
On Sat, Apr 05, 2025 at 04:22:34PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 05, 2025 at 01:01:53AM -0500, Andrew Ballance wrote:
> > adds the __mtree_insert_range which is identical to mtree_insert_range
> > but does not aquire ma_lock.
> > This function is needed for the rust bindings for maple trees because
> > the locking is handled on the rust side.
>
> No.
>
> The support for external locking is a TEMPORARY HACK. I've talked
> before about why this is and don't feel like explaining it again.
Does it mean that ideally maple trees should not support external
locking, i.e. it should use its own locking?
(BTw, people usually add some documentation if they don't want to repeat
themselves ;-))
Regards,
Boqun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists