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:0.345 / U:0.540 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site