Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 14 Jun 2022 16:57:01 +0100
From:   Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mm/kmemleak: Use _irq lock/unlock variants in
 kmemleak_scan/_clear()
Message-ID: <YqivzfKoptxz2CMX@arm.com>
References: <20220612183301.981616-1-longman@redhat.com>
 <20220612183301.981616-2-longman@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220612183301.981616-2-longman@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Jun 12, 2022 at 02:32:59PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> The kmemleak_scan() function is called only from the kmemleak scan
> thread or from write to the kmemleak debugfs file. Both are in task
> context and so we can directly use the simpler _irq() lock/unlock calls
> instead of the more complex _irqsave/_irqrestore variants.
> 
> Similarly, kmemleak_clear() is called only from write to the kmemleak
> debugfs file. The same change can be applied.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>

Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>