> On Mar 5, 2023, at 5:29 AM, Joel Fernandes <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, All, > >> On Wed, Feb 1, 2023 at 10:11 AM Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) >> <urezki@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> For a single argument invocations a new kfree_rcu_mightsleep() >> and kvfree_rcu_mightsleep() macroses are used. This is done in >> order to prevent users from calling a single argument from >> atomic contexts as "_mightsleep" prefix signals that it can >> schedule(). >> > > Since this commit in -dev branch [1] suggests more users still need > conversion, let us drop this single patch for 6.4 and move the rest of > the series forward? Let me know if you disagree. > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/linux-rcu.git/commit/?h=dev&id=9bf5e3a2626ed474d080f695007541b6ecd6e60b > > All -- please supply Ack/Review tags for patches 1-12. Or put another way, what is the transition plan for these remaining users? I am getting on a plane right now but I can research which users are remaining later. - Joel > > thanks, > > - Joel > > >> Signed-off-by: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@xxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> include/linux/rcupdate.h | 29 ++++++++--------------------- >> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h >> index 094321c17e48..7571dbfecb18 100644 >> --- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h >> +++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h >> @@ -957,9 +957,8 @@ static inline notrace void rcu_read_unlock_sched_notrace(void) >> >> /** >> * kfree_rcu() - kfree an object after a grace period. >> - * @ptr: pointer to kfree for both single- and double-argument invocations. >> - * @rhf: the name of the struct rcu_head within the type of @ptr, >> - * but only for double-argument invocations. >> + * @ptr: pointer to kfree for double-argument invocations. >> + * @rhf: the name of the struct rcu_head within the type of @ptr. >> * >> * Many rcu callbacks functions just call kfree() on the base structure. >> * These functions are trivial, but their size adds up, and furthermore >> @@ -982,26 +981,18 @@ static inline notrace void rcu_read_unlock_sched_notrace(void) >> * The BUILD_BUG_ON check must not involve any function calls, hence the >> * checks are done in macros here. >> */ >> -#define kfree_rcu(ptr, rhf...) kvfree_rcu(ptr, ## rhf) >> +#define kfree_rcu(ptr, rhf) kvfree_rcu_arg_2(ptr, rhf) >> +#define kvfree_rcu(ptr, rhf) kvfree_rcu_arg_2(ptr, rhf) >> >> /** >> - * kvfree_rcu() - kvfree an object after a grace period. >> - * >> - * This macro consists of one or two arguments and it is >> - * based on whether an object is head-less or not. If it >> - * has a head then a semantic stays the same as it used >> - * to be before: >> - * >> - * kvfree_rcu(ptr, rhf); >> - * >> - * where @ptr is a pointer to kvfree(), @rhf is the name >> - * of the rcu_head structure within the type of @ptr. >> + * kfree_rcu_mightsleep() - kfree an object after a grace period. >> + * @ptr: pointer to kfree for single-argument invocations. >> * >> * When it comes to head-less variant, only one argument >> * is passed and that is just a pointer which has to be >> * freed after a grace period. Therefore the semantic is >> * >> - * kvfree_rcu(ptr); >> + * kfree_rcu_mightsleep(ptr); >> * >> * where @ptr is the pointer to be freed by kvfree(). >> * >> @@ -1010,13 +1001,9 @@ static inline notrace void rcu_read_unlock_sched_notrace(void) >> * annotation. Otherwise, please switch and embed the >> * rcu_head structure within the type of @ptr. >> */ >> -#define kvfree_rcu(...) KVFREE_GET_MACRO(__VA_ARGS__, \ >> - kvfree_rcu_arg_2, kvfree_rcu_arg_1)(__VA_ARGS__) >> - >> +#define kfree_rcu_mightsleep(ptr) kvfree_rcu_arg_1(ptr) >> #define kvfree_rcu_mightsleep(ptr) kvfree_rcu_arg_1(ptr) >> -#define kfree_rcu_mightsleep(ptr) kvfree_rcu_mightsleep(ptr) >> >> -#define KVFREE_GET_MACRO(_1, _2, NAME, ...) NAME >> #define kvfree_rcu_arg_2(ptr, rhf) \ >> do { \ >> typeof (ptr) ___p = (ptr); \ >> -- >> 2.30.2 >>
