On Tue 27-03-18 19:07:22, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 08:33:22AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > + * The function itself might sleep so it cannot be called from atomic > > > > > + * contexts. > > > > I don't see how walk_free_mem_block() can sleep. > > > > > > OK, it would be better to remove this sentence for the current version. But > > > I think we could probably keep it if we decide to add cond_resched() below. > > > > The point of this sentence was to make any user aware that the function > > might sleep from the very begining rather than chase existing callers > > when we need to add cond_resched or sleep for any other reason. So I > > would rather keep it. > > Let's say what it is then - "will be changed to sleep in the future". Do we really want to describe the precise implementation in the documentation? I thought the main purpose of the documentation is to describe the _contract_. If I am curious about the implementation I can look at the code. As I've said earlier in this patchset lifetime. This interface is rather dangerous because we are exposing guts of our internal data structures. So we better set expectations of what can and cannot be done right from the beginning. I definitely do not want somebody to simply look at the code and see that the interface is sleepable and abuse that fact. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
