On Thu, Aug 01, 2024 at 03:32:53PM -0700, Kinsey Ho wrote: > Sorry, I replied to this email earlier but it had some issues with plain > text. Please ignore the first reply of mine (the one with HTML). I'm resending > the email below. > > Thank you Johannes, Roman, and Yosry for reviewing this patch! > > On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 3:34 PM Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 1:43 PM Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > What does this buy us? The tryget is cheap. > > > > mem_cgroup_iter() is not an easy function to follow, so I personally > > appreciate the simplicity gains tbh. > > Yes, the main intention here was to simplify the code's readability. > > > This reads to me like it is intentional that RCU protection is enough > > for @pos and @root, and that the sibling linkage is RCU protected by > > design. Perhaps we could clarify this further (whether at > > css_next_descendant_pre(), or above the definition of the linkage > > members). > > Do we want to move forward with Yosry's suggestion to clarify that the > sibling linkage is RCU-protected by design? Perhaps this clarification > can be made in the definition of the linkage members so that the > safety of the css in this function is more clear to users. If this is > sufficient, I will make the change in a v2 patchset. Yes, that sounds like a good way forward to me.
