On 11/13/19 8:46 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 05:59:52AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
+int mmu_interval_notifier_insert(struct mmu_interval_notifier *mni,
+ struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long start,
+ unsigned long length,
+ const struct mmu_interval_notifier_ops *ops);
+int mmu_interval_notifier_insert_locked(
+ struct mmu_interval_notifier *mni, struct mm_struct *mm,
+ unsigned long start, unsigned long length,
+ const struct mmu_interval_notifier_ops *ops);
Very inconsistent indentation between these two related functions.
clang-format.. The kernel config is set to prefer a line up under the
( if all the arguments will fit within the 80 cols otherwise it does a
1 tab continuation indent.
+ /*
+ * The inv_end incorporates a deferred mechanism like
+ * rtnl_unlock(). Adds and removes are queued until the final inv_end
+ * happens then they are progressed. This arrangement for tree updates
+ * is used to avoid using a blocking lock during
+ * invalidate_range_start.
Nitpick: That comment can be condensed into one less line:
The rtnl_unlock can move up a line too. My editor is failing me on
this.
+ /*
+ * TODO: Since we already have a spinlock above, this would be faster
+ * as wake_up_q
+ */
+ if (need_wake)
+ wake_up_all(&mmn_mm->wq);
So why is this important enough for a TODO comment, but not important
enough to do right away?
Lets drop the comment, I'm noto sure wake_up_q is even a function this
layer should be calling.
Actually, I think you can remove the "need_wake" variable since it is
unconditionally set to "true".
Also, the comment in__mmu_interval_notifier_insert() says
"mni->mr_invalidate_seq" and I think that should be
"mni->invalidate_seq".
