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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230421221249.1616168-1-dianders@chromium.org>
 <20230421151135.v2.1.I2b71e11264c5c214bc59744b9e13e4c353bc5714@changeid>
 <20230422051858.1696-1-hdanton@sina.com> <CAD=FV=XAJnWL8YHok8RcgR8aK5igKfvE2iD7aW7Rpr4cDVJedQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230425010917.1984-1-hdanton@sina.com> <CAD=FV=XWuQoaGZG_Tm8AqGAsqGSAa822bNw3Dp2QnmR40npURw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230426044207.2378-1-hdanton@sina.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230426044207.2378-1-hdanton@sina.com>
From:   Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Date:   Tue, 25 Apr 2023 21:55:37 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=UE=4-oR5hvUMt0e1G5a4bbmzcQGPs9LkjTVasWwV4uBA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] mm/filemap: Add folio_lock_timeout()
To:     Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 9:42=E2=80=AFPM Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com> wro=
te:
>
> On 25 Apr 2023 07:19:48 -0700 Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
> >
> > So is this an explicit NAK on this approach, then?
>
> Ah I see your point. You misunderstood because I dont think NAk is needed
> in 99.999% cases, given the fact that 1) your patch will never be able to
> escape from standing ovation 2) every mutex_trylock() hints the straws in=
 mind.

I'm afraid I'm still super confused about what you're saying. You
think I should abandon this patch series, or that it might be OK to
continue with it?

-Doug