lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [May]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v5.5 10/10] mmap locking API: rename mmap_sem to mmap_lock
    From
    Date
    Le 19/05/2020 à 15:10, Michel Lespinasse a écrit :
    > On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 03:45:22PM +0200, Laurent Dufour wrote:
    >> Le 24/04/2020 à 03:39, Michel Lespinasse a écrit :
    >>> Rename the mmap_sem field to mmap_lock. Any new uses of this lock
    >>> should now go through the new mmap locking api. The mmap_lock is
    >>> still implemented as a rwsem, though this could change in the future.
    >>>
    >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/etnaviv/etnaviv_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/etnaviv/etnaviv_gem.c
    >>> index dc9ef302f517..701f3995f621 100644
    >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/etnaviv/etnaviv_gem.c
    >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/etnaviv/etnaviv_gem.c
    >>> @@ -661,7 +661,7 @@ static int etnaviv_gem_userptr_get_pages(struct etnaviv_gem_object *etnaviv_obj)
    >>> struct etnaviv_gem_userptr *userptr = &etnaviv_obj->userptr;
    >>> int ret, pinned = 0, npages = etnaviv_obj->base.size >> PAGE_SHIFT;
    >>> - might_lock_read(&current->mm->mmap_sem);
    >>> + might_lock_read(&current->mm->mmap_lock);
    >>
    >> Why not a mm_might_lock_read() new API to hide the mmap_lock, and add it to
    >> the previous patch?
    >
    > I'm not sure why this is needed - we may rework the lock to be
    > something else than rwsem, but might_lock_read should still apply to
    > it and make sense ? I'm not sure what the extra API would bring...

    I guess at one time the API would become might_lock_read_a_range(), isn't it?
    Furthermore this would hiding the lock's name which the goal of this series.


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2020-05-19 15:22    [W:4.618 / U:0.068 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site