On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 12:56 PM Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hello, > > On Fri, Mar 03, 2023 at 03:23:10PM +0530, Kamalesh Babulal wrote: > > Replace mutex_[un]lock() with cgroup_[un]lock() wrappers to stay > > consistent across cgroup core and other subsystem code, while > > operating on the cgroup_mutex. > > cgroup_[un]lock() were added because multi-gen lru wanted to lock > cgroup_mutex from code which may be enabled even when cgroup is not enabled. > That's the only place where that's the case. Hmm... it doesn't really matter > I guess. Yeah, let's do this. > > Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Alexei, if you wanna take it through the bpf tree, please go ahead. > Otherwise, I can route it through cgroup tree. Either way is fine. diff stat says that cgroup directory has more changes, so probably lesser chance of conflicts if it goes through cgroup tree. So go ahead. Pls add: Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxxxxxx>
