On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 04:17:56PM -0700, Ben Gardon wrote: > The goal of this RFC is to demonstrate and gather feedback on the > iterator pattern, the memory savings it enables for the "direct case" > and the changes to the synchronization model. Though they are interwoven > in this series, I will separate the iterator from the synchronization > changes in a future series. I recognize that some feature work will be > needed to make this patch set ready for merging. That work is detailed > at the end of this cover letter. How difficult would it be to send the synchronization changes as a separate series in the not-too-distant future? At a brief glance, those changes appear to be tiny relative to the direct iterator changes. From a stability perspective, it would be nice if the locking changes can get upstreamed and tested in the wild for a few kernel versions before the iterator code is introduced.
