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, 23 May 2023 08:13:47 -0700
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To:     Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>,
        Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@gmail.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        "Liam R . Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com>,
        Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@sony.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/9] mm: vmalloc: Add a per-CPU-zone infrastructure
Message-ID: <ZGzYK4x6+anak3Ew@infradead.org>
References: <20230522110849.2921-1-urezki@gmail.com>
 <20230522110849.2921-5-urezki@gmail.com>
 <ZGxYZlLoADBWktT8@infradead.org>
 <ZGzTZWq/hAYCE3DA@pc636>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZGzTZWq/hAYCE3DA@pc636>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 04:53:25PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > > +#define fbl_lock(z, i) spin_lock(&fbl(z, i, lock))
> > > +#define fbl_unlock(z, i) spin_unlock(&fbl(z, i, lock))
> > 
> > Even if it is just temporary, I don't think adding these wrappers
> > make much sense.
> > 
> If open-coded, it looks like:
> 
> spin_lock(&z->fbl[BUSY].lock);

Give the fbl structure a name and you can have a local variable for it,
which will make all this a lot more readable.  And then unless there is
a really good reason to iterate over this as an array just have three
of these structs embedded named free, busy and lazy.