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;
Date:   Thu, 23 Apr 2020 18:26:12 -0700
From:   Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 10/10] mmap locking API: rename mmap_sem to mmap_lock
Message-ID: <20200424012612.GA158937@google.com>
References: <20200422001422.232330-1-walken@google.com>
 <20200422001422.232330-11-walken@google.com>
 <20200422015829.GR5820@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <CANN689EnGsJXA8n6JvTryQfkCtARPvtZbkH+9Dd2a4X+fvqU9g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200423015917.GA13910@bombadil.infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200423015917.GA13910@bombadil.infradead.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 06:59:17PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 03:54:32PM -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Just add mmap_assert_write_locked() -- some of these places can be called
> with the rwsem held for either read or write; it doesn't matter which.
> Others need it held for write.  There aren't any places (that I'm aware
> of) that need to assert that it's held for read, and not held for write.
> 
> > 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...
> 
> It seems like a better way to remove users of the term 'mmap_sem' than
> just converting them to use the new 'mmap_lock'.

Hmmm, OK. I updated changes 09/10 and 10/10 based on this feedback. I
do not want to resend the entire series, so I am going to send just
these two changes as replies to this message and call these v5.5 :)

-- 
Michel "Walken" Lespinasse
A program is never fully debugged until the last user dies.