Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 7 Nov 2019 11:42:25 -0800
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc:     Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs: Take read_lock on i_mmap for PMD sharing
Message-ID: <20191107194225.GE11823@bombadil.infradead.org>
References: <20191107190628.22667-1-longman@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20191107190628.22667-1-longman@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 02:06:28PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> -	i_mmap_lock_write(mapping);
> +	/*
> +	 * PMD sharing does not require changes to i_mmap. So a read lock
> +	 * is enuogh.
> +	 */
> +	i_mmap_lock_read(mapping);

We don't have comments before any of the other calls to i_mmap_lock_read()
justifying why we don't need the write lock.  I don't understand why this
situation is different.  Just delete the comment and make this a two-line
patch.