On 11/13/19 8:46 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 05:59:52AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
+int mmu_interval_notifier_insert(struct mmu_interval_notifier *mni,
struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long start,unsigned long length,const struct mmu_interval_notifier_ops *ops);+int mmu_interval_notifier_insert_locked(
- struct mmu_interval_notifier *mni, struct mm_struct *mm,
- unsigned long start, unsigned long length,
- const struct mmu_interval_notifier_ops *ops);
Very inconsistent indentation between these two related functions.
clang-format.. The kernel config is set to prefer a line up under the ( if all the arguments will fit within the 80 cols otherwise it does a 1 tab continuation indent.
- /*
* The inv_end incorporates a deferred mechanism like* rtnl_unlock(). Adds and removes are queued until the final inv_end* happens then they are progressed. This arrangement for tree updates* is used to avoid using a blocking lock during* invalidate_range_start.Nitpick: That comment can be condensed into one less line:
The rtnl_unlock can move up a line too. My editor is failing me on this.
- /*
* TODO: Since we already have a spinlock above, this would be faster* as wake_up_q*/- if (need_wake)
wake_up_all(&mmn_mm->wq);So why is this important enough for a TODO comment, but not important enough to do right away?
Lets drop the comment, I'm noto sure wake_up_q is even a function this layer should be calling.
Actually, I think you can remove the "need_wake" variable since it is unconditionally set to "true".
Also, the comment in__mmu_interval_notifier_insert() says "mni->mr_invalidate_seq" and I think that should be "mni->invalidate_seq".