From:   Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 2 Feb 2023 16:54:15 +0100
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc:     "Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" <urezki@gmail.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, RCU <rcu@vger.kernel.org>,
        Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@sony.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        Philipp Reisner <philipp.reisner@linbit.com>,
        Bryan Tan <bryantan@vmware.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Bob Pearson <rpearsonhpe@gmail.com>,
        Ariel Levkovich <lariel@nvidia.com>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>, Julian Anastasov <ja@ssi.bg>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] Rename k[v]free_rcu() single argument to
 k[v]free_rcu_mightsleep()
Message-ID: <Y9vcp2jADVzHl0AE@pc636>
References: <20230201150815.409582-1-urezki@gmail.com>
 <20230201191211.GK2948950@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230201191211.GK2948950@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Feb 01, 2023 at 11:12:11AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2023 at 04:08:06PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) wrote:
> > This small series is based on Paul's "dev" branch. Head is 6002817348a1c610dc1b1c01ff81654cdec12be4
> > it renames a single argument of k[v]free_rcu() to its new k[v]free_rcu_mightsleep() name.
> > 
> > 1.
> > The problem is that, recently we have run into a precedent when
> > a user intended to give a second argument to kfree_rcu() API but
> > forgot to do it in a code so a call became as a single argument
> > of kfree_rcu() API.
> > 
> > 2.
> > Such mistyping can lead to hidden bags where sleeping is forbidden.
> > 
> > 3.
> > _mightsleep() prefix gives much more information for which contexts
> > it can be used for.
> 
> Thank you!!!
> 
> I have queued these (aside from 10/13, which is being replaced by a
> patch from Julian Anastasov) for further testing and review.  And with
> the usual wordsmithing.
> 
Good. 10/13 will go with two arguments. So it is not needed. Just for
confirmation.

BTW, i see two complains from the robot due to 10/13 patch uses an old API
name.

>
> If testing goes well, I might try to get 1/13 into the next merge window,
> which would simplify things if maintainers want to take their patches
> separately.
> 
Thanks!

--
Uladzislau Rezki