Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-213247-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 07:00:40 -0600
From: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: Nilay Shroff <nilay@linux.ibm.com>, Keith Busch <kbusch@meta.com>,
	linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, sagi@grimberg.me,
	paulmck@kernel.org, davidgow@google.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
	venkat88@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] list: introduce a new cutting helper
Message-ID: <ZmrteDHF_HlWHFth@kbusch-mbp>
References: <20240612155135.3060667-1-kbusch@meta.com>
 <f0e4c51c-8227-4f5c-876f-38fbb4a0e1bf@linux.ibm.com>
 <20240613081016.GA21500@lst.de>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240613081016.GA21500@lst.de>

On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 10:10:16AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 10:26:11AM +0530, Nilay Shroff wrote:
> > I am wondering whether we really need the _rcu version of list_cut here?
> > I think that @head could point to an _rcu protected list and that's true 
> > for this patch. So there might be concurrent readers accessing @head using
> > _rcu list-traversal primitives, such as list_for_each_entry_rcu().
> 
> Yes, I can't see how this works for a RCU lists without very careful
> memory ordering.
> 
> Btw, another thing - the old vs new list ordering is reversed vs
> list_splice*, which is a bit confusing (as are the parameter names
> both for list_splice* and this new helper).  Can you switch them
> around to match?

The parameters follow the existing conventions from list_cut_back and
list_cut_position. Those functions cut off from the head to the "entry",
and this one cuts off the "entry" to the tail instead.