[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1959105.1698873750@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2023 21:22:30 +0000
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@...istor.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>, linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rxrpc_find_service_conn_rcu: use read_seqbegin() rather than read_seqbegin_or_lock()
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> Just none of read_seqbegin_or_lock/need_seqretry/done_seqretry
> helpers make any sense in this code.
I disagree. I think in at least a couple of cases I do want a locked second
path - ideally locked shared if seqlock can be made to use an rwlock instead
of a spinlock.
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists