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:   Tue, 19 May 2020 19:17:38 -0700
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] mm/swap: Use local_lock for protection
Message-ID: <20200520021738.GC16070@bombadil.infradead.org>
References: <20200519201912.1564477-1-bigeasy@linutronix.de>
 <20200519201912.1564477-5-bigeasy@linutronix.de>
 <20200519165837.883035d3228c582b9bff1d77@linux-foundation.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200519165837.883035d3228c582b9bff1d77@linux-foundation.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 04:58:37PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 19 May 2020 22:19:08 +0200 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> wrote:
> > +				local_lock(swapvec_lock);
> 
> It's quite peculiar that these operations appear to be pass-by-value. 
> All other locking operations are pass-by-reference - spin_lock(&lock),
> not spin_lock(lock).  This is what the eye expects to see and it's
> simply more logical - calling code shouldn't have to "know" that the
> locking operations are implemented as cpp macros.  And we'd be in a
> mess if someone tried to convert these to real C functions.

The funny thing is that the documentation gets this right:

+The mapping of local_lock to spinlock_t on PREEMPT_RT kernels has a few
+implications. For example, on a non-PREEMPT_RT kernel the following code
+sequence works as expected::
+
+  local_lock_irq(&local_lock);
+  raw_spin_lock(&lock);

but apparently the implementation changed without the documentation matching.