On 2022-11-10, Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> + /* Only the new head can have CON_CONSDEV set. */ >>>> + WRITE_ONCE(cur_pref_con->flags, cur_pref_con->flags & ~CON_CONSDEV); >>> >>> As mentioned in the reply for 7th patch, I would prefer to hide this >>> WRITE_ONCE into a wrapper, e.g. console_set_flag(). It might also >>> check that the console_list_lock is taken... >> >> Agreed. For v4 it will become: >> >> console_srcu_write_flags(cur_pref_con, cur_pref_con->flags & ~CON_CONSDEV); > > I am happy that your are going to introduce an API for this. > > Just to be sure. The _srcu_ in the name means that the write > will use WRITE_ONCE() so that it can be read safely in SRCU > context using READ_ONCE(). Do I get it correctly, please? Yes. > I expect that the counter part will be console_srcu_read_flags(). > I like the name. It is better than _unsafe_ that I proposed earlier. Since the only flag that is ever checked in this way is CON_ENABLED, I was planning on calling it console_srcu_is_enabled(). But I suppose I could have it be: (console_srcu_read_flags() & CON_ENABLED). That would keep it more abstract in case anyone should want to read other flag bits under SRCU. There are only 4 call sites that need this, so I suppose we don't need a special _is_enabled() variant. Thanks for the suggestion! John
