On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 12:10 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 04:27:14PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 12:14 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 06:54:50PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > > > On Wed 03-07-19 20:27:28, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > > > So I think we're good for all current users. > > > > > > > > Agreed but it is an ugly trap. As I already said, I'd rather pay the > > > > unnecessary cost of waiting for pte entry and have an easy to understand > > > > interface. If we ever have a real world use case that would care for this > > > > optimization, we will need to refactor functions to make this possible and > > > > still keep the interfaces sane. For example get_unlocked_entry() could > > > > return special "error code" indicating that there's no entry with matching > > > > order in xarray but there's a conflict with it. That would be much less > > > > error-prone interface. > > > > > > This is an internal interface. I think it's already a pretty gnarly > > > interface to use by definition -- it's going to sleep and might return > > > almost anything. There's not much scope for returning an error indicator > > > either; value entries occupy half of the range (all odd numbers between 1 > > > and ULONG_MAX inclusive), plus NULL. We could use an internal entry, but > > > I don't think that makes the interface any easier to use than returning > > > a locked entry. > > > > > > I think this iteration of the patch makes it a little clearer. What do you > > > think? > > > > > > > Not much clearer to me. get_unlocked_entry() is now misnamed and this > > misnamed? You'd rather it was called "try_get_unlocked_entry()"? I was thinking more along the lines of get_unlocked_but_sometimes_locked_entry(), i.e. per Jan's feedback to keep the interface simple.
