On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 06:59:17PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 03:54:32PM -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 6:58 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 05:14:22PM -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote: > > > > Rename the mmap_sem field to mmap_lock. Any new uses of this lock > > > > > > Shouldn't some of these be folded into the previous patch? > > > > So, I didn't do it because previous patch only handled rwsem_is_locked > > call sites. I leaned towards adding as few new API functions as > > possible until we figure out exactly what is required. > > > > That said, I agree it seems reasonable to split mmap_assert_locked() > > into mmap_assert_read_locked() and mmap_assert_write_locked(), and > > convert the lockdep asserts to use these instead. > > Just add mmap_assert_write_locked() -- some of these places can be called > with the rwsem held for either read or write; it doesn't matter which. > Others need it held for write. There aren't any places (that I'm aware > of) that need to assert that it's held for read, and not held for write. > > > I'm not sure we need to do it right away though; we are at least not > > losing any test coverage with the existing version of the patchset... > > It seems like a better way to remove users of the term 'mmap_sem' than > just converting them to use the new 'mmap_lock'. Hmmm, OK. I updated changes 09/10 and 10/10 based on this feedback. I do not want to resend the entire series, so I am going to send just these two changes as replies to this message and call these v5.5 :) -- Michel "Walken" Lespinasse A program is never fully debugged until the last user dies.
