Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sat, 29 Apr 2017 21:47:00 -0700 | From | Matthew Wilcox <> | Subject | Re: [RFC v3 03/17] mm: Introduce pte_spinlock |
| |
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 05:52:42PM +0200, Laurent Dufour wrote: > +++ b/mm/memory.c > @@ -2100,6 +2100,13 @@ static inline void wp_page_reuse(struct vm_fault *vmf) > pte_unmap_unlock(vmf->pte, vmf->ptl); > } > > +static bool pte_spinlock(struct vm_fault *vmf) > +{ > + vmf->ptl = pte_lockptr(vmf->vma->vm_mm, vmf->pmd); > + spin_lock(vmf->ptl); > + return true; > +}
To me 'pte_spinlock' is a noun, but this is really pte_spin_lock() (a verb).
Actually, it's really vmf_lock_pte(). We're locking the pte referred to by this vmf. And so we should probably have a matching vmf_unlock_pte(vmf) to preserve the abstraction.
|  |