Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200422001422.232330-1-walken@google.com> <20200422001422.232330-11-walken@google.com>
 <20200422015829.GR5820@bombadil.infradead.org>
In-Reply-To: <20200422015829.GR5820@bombadil.infradead.org>
From:   Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 22 Apr 2020 15:54:32 -0700
Message-ID: <CANN689EnGsJXA8n6JvTryQfkCtARPvtZbkH+9Dd2a4X+fvqU9g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 10/10] mmap locking API: rename mmap_sem to mmap_lock
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.ibm.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Liam Howlett <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com>,
        Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Ying Han <yinghan@google.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
        Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 6:58 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 05:14:22PM -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> > Rename the mmap_sem field to mmap_lock. Any new uses of this lock
>
> Shouldn't some of these be folded into the previous patch?

So, I didn't do it because previous patch only handled rwsem_is_locked
call sites. I leaned towards adding as few new API functions as
possible until we figure out exactly what is required.

That said, I agree it seems reasonable to split mmap_assert_locked()
into mmap_assert_read_locked() and mmap_assert_write_locked(), and
convert the lockdep asserts to use these instead.
I'm not sure we need to do it right away though; we are at least not
losing any test coverage with the existing version of the patchset...