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:   Thu, 4 Aug 2022 01:42:25 +0100
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [git pull] vfs.git pile 3 - dcache
Message-ID: <YusV8cr382PeBNLM@casper.infradead.org>
References: <YurA3aSb4GRr4wlW@ZenIV>
 <CAHk-=wizUgMbZKnOjvyeZT5E+WZM0sV+zS5Qxt84wp=BsRk3eQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <YuruqoGHJONpdZcK@home.goodmis.org>
 <CAHk-=whJvgykcTnR+BMJNwd+me5wvg+CxjSBeiPYTR1B2g5NpQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220803185936.228dc690@gandalf.local.home>
 <YusDmF39ykDmfSkF@casper.infradead.org>
 <CAHk-=wh6VSqsnANHkQpw=yD-Hkt90Y1LX=ad9+r+SusfriUOfA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wh6VSqsnANHkQpw=yD-Hkt90Y1LX=ad9+r+SusfriUOfA@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Aug 03, 2022 at 04:42:43PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 4:24 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 03, 2022 at 06:59:36PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > >
> > >       preempt_disable_inlock() ?
> >
> > preempt_disable_locked()?
> 
> Heh. Shed painting in full glory.
> 
> Let's try just "preempt_enable_under_spinlock()" and see.
> 
> It's a bit long, but it's still shorter than the existing usage pattern.
> 
> And we don't have "inlock" anywhere else, and while "locked" is a real
> pattern we have, it tends to be about other things (ie "I hold the
> lock that you need, so don't take it").
> 
> And this is _explicitly_ only about spinning locks, because sleeping
> locks don't do the preemption disable even without RT.
> 
> So let's make it verbose and clear and unambiguous. It's not like I
> expect to see a _lot_ of those. Knock wood.

Should we have it take a spinlock_t pointer?  We could have lockdep
check it is actually held.