Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5.5 10/10] mmap locking API: rename mmap_sem to mmap_lock | From | Laurent Dufour <> | Date | Tue, 19 May 2020 15:20:40 +0200 |
| |
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(¤t->mm->mmap_sem); >>> + might_lock_read(¤t->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.
| |