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:   Wed, 27 May 2020 12:02:57 -0400
From:   Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc:     io-uring@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/12] mm: add support for async page locking
Message-ID: <20200527160257.GB42293@cmpxchg.org>
References: <20200526195123.29053-1-axboe@kernel.dk>
 <20200526195123.29053-5-axboe@kernel.dk>
 <20200526215925.GC6781@cmpxchg.org>
 <152529a5-adb4-fd7b-52ac-967500c011c9@kernel.dk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <152529a5-adb4-fd7b-52ac-967500c011c9@kernel.dk>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 04:01:07PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 5/26/20 3:59 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 01:51:15PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >> Normally waiting for a page to become unlocked, or locking the page,
> >> requires waiting for IO to complete. Add support for lock_page_async()
> >> and wait_on_page_locked_async(), which are callback based instead. This
> > 
> > wait_on_page_locked_async() is actually in the next patch, requiring
> > some back and forth to review. I wonder if this and the next patch
> > could be merged to have the new API and callers introduced together?
> 
> I'm fine with that, if that is preferable. Don't feel strongly about
> that at all, just tried to do it as piecemeal as possible to make
> it easier to review.

Not worth sending a new iteration over, IMO.