Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-64165-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240213001920.3551772-1-lokeshgidra@google.com>
 <20240213001920.3551772-4-lokeshgidra@google.com> <20240213033307.zbhrpjigco7vl56z@revolver>
 <CA+EESO5TNubw4vi08P6BO-4XKTLNVeNfjM92ieZJTd_oJt9Ygw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240213170609.s3queephdyxzrz7j@revolver> <CA+EESO5URPpJj35-jQy+Lrp1EtKms8r1ri2ZY3ZOpsSJU+CScw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJuCfpFXWJovv6G4ou2nK2W1D2-JGb5Hw8m77-pOq4Rh24-q9A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240213184905.tp4i2ifbglfzlwi6@revolver> <CAJuCfpG+8uypn3Mw0GNBj0TUM51gaSdAnGZB-RE4HdJs7dKb0A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+EESO6M5VudYK-CqT2snvs25dnrdTLzzKAjoSe7368X-PcFew@mail.gmail.com> <20240213192744.5fqwrlqz5bbvqtf5@revolver>
In-Reply-To: <20240213192744.5fqwrlqz5bbvqtf5@revolver>
From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 11:30:59 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJuCfpEvdK-jOS9a7yv1_KnFeyu8665gFtk871ac-y+3BiMbVw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] userfaultfd: use per-vma locks in userfaultfd operations
To: "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com>, Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@google.com>, 
	Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>, akpm@linux-foundation.org, 
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, selinux@vger.kernel.org, 
	kernel-team@android.com, aarcange@redhat.com, peterx@redhat.com, 
	david@redhat.com, axelrasmussen@google.com, bgeffon@google.com, 
	willy@infradead.org, jannh@google.com, kaleshsingh@google.com, 
	ngeoffray@google.com, timmurray@google.com, rppt@kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 11:27=E2=80=AFAM Liam R. Howlett
<Liam.Howlett@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> * Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@google.com> [240213 14:18]:
> ...
>
> > > > We could use something like uffd_prepare(), uffd_complete() but I
> > > > thought of those names rather late in the cycle, but I've already c=
aused
> > > > many iterations of this patch set and that clean up didn't seem as =
vital
> > > > as simplicity and clarity of the locking code.
> >
> > I anyway have to send another version to fix the error handling that
> > you reported earlier. I can take care of this in that version.
> >
> > mfill_atomic...() functions (annoyingly) have to sometimes unlock and
> > relock. Using prepare/complete in that context seems incompatible.
> >
> > >
> > > Maybe lock_vma_for_uffd()/unlock_vma_for_uffd()? Whatever name is
> > > better I'm fine with it but all these #ifdef's sprinkled around don't
> > > contribute to the readability.
> >
> > I'll wait for an agreement on this because I too don't like using so
> > many ifdef's either.
> >
> > Since these functions are supposed to have prototype depending on
> > mfill/move, how about the following names:
> >
> > uffd_lock_mfill_vma()/uffd_unlock_mfill_vma()
> > uffd_lock_move_vmas()/uffd_unlock_move_vmas()
> >
> > Of course, I'm open to other suggestions as well.
> >
>
> I'm happy with those if you remove the vma/vmas from the name.

Sounds good to me.

>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an=
 email to kernel-team+unsubscribe@android.com.
>