[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20251023145131.GI262900@nvidia.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2025 11:51:31 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@...nel.org>
Cc: Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
chrome-platform@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
Simona Vetter <simona.vetter@...ll.ch>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 5/7] revocable: Add fops replacement
On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 10:22:01PM +0800, Tzung-Bi Shih wrote:
> I was misunderstanding about the "sync" we were discussing for
> misc_deregister_sync(). The "sync", is analogous to synchronize_srcu()
> of revocable_provider_revoke() in the revocable version [1], doesn't wait
> for closing all opened files.
Yes, and my remark is we don't need to obfuscate simple locks in core
kernel code.
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists