[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <luegqrbloxpshm6niwre2ys3onurhttd5i3dudxbh4xzszo6bo@vqqxdtgrxxsm>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2025 16:23:35 +0200
From: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>
To: Chen Ridong <chenridong@...weicloud.com>
Cc: longman@...hat.com, tj@...nel.org, hannes@...xchg.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lujialin4@...wei.com,
chenridong@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next v5 3/3] cpuset: add helpers for cpus read and
cpuset_mutex locks
(I wrote this yesterday before merging but I'm still sending it to give
my opinion ;-))
On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 03:23:52AM +0000, Chen Ridong <chenridong@...weicloud.com> wrote:
> From: Chen Ridong <chenridong@...wei.com>
>
> cpuset: add helpers for cpus_read_lock and cpuset_mutex locks.
>
> Replace repetitive locking patterns with new helpers:
> - cpuset_full_lock()
> - cpuset_full_unlock()
I don't see many precedents elsewhere in the kernel for such naming
(like _lock and _full_lock()). Wouldn't it be more illustrative to have
cpuset_read_lock() and cpuset_write_lock()? (As I'm looking at current
users and your accompanying comments which could be substituted with
the more conventional naming.)
(Also if you decide going this direction, please mention commit
111cd11bbc548 ("sched/cpuset: Bring back cpuset_mutex") in the message
so that it doesn't tempt to do further changes.)
> This makes the code cleaner and ensures consistent lock ordering.
Lock guards anyone? (When you're touching this and seeking clean code.)
Thanks,
Michal
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (266 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists