Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
Sender: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 5 May 2022 10:05:51 -1000
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To:     Imran Khan <imran.f.khan@oracle.com>
Cc:     viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] kernfs: Replace global kernfs_open_file_mutex with
 hashed mutexes.
Message-ID: <YnQuH5ijv6bWUKPM@slm.duckdns.org>
References: <20220428055431.3826852-1-imran.f.khan@oracle.com>
 <20220428055431.3826852-6-imran.f.khan@oracle.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220428055431.3826852-6-imran.f.khan@oracle.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 03:54:31PM +1000, Imran Khan wrote:
> +static void __init kernfs_mutex_init(void)
> +{
> +	int count;
> +
> +	for (count = 0; count < NR_KERNFS_LOCKS; count++)
> +		mutex_init(&kernfs_locks->open_file_mutex[count]);
> +}

Does this need to be a separate function?

> +static void __init kernfs_lock_init(void)
> +{
> +	kernfs_locks = kmalloc(sizeof(struct kernfs_global_locks), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	WARN_ON(!kernfs_locks);
> +
> +	kernfs_mutex_init();
> +}
> +
>  void __init kernfs_init(void)
>  {
>  	kernfs_node_cache = kmem_cache_create("kernfs_node_cache",

Other than that minor nitpick,

Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>

Thanks.

-- 
tejun