> On Mar 5, 2023, at 6:41 AM, Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> >>>> 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. >> > I am not sure. I think we can cover it on the meeting. Cool, thanks. > My feeling is > that, we introduced "_mightsleep" macros first and after that try to > convert users. One stopgap could be to add a checkpatch error if anyone tries to use old API, and then in the meanwhile convert all users. Though, that requires people listening to checkpatch complaints. Thanks, - Joel > > @Paul what is your view? > > Thanks! > > -- > Uladzislau Rezki
