Re: [PATCH v5 5/9] mm: list_lru: deduplicate lock_list_lru()

[Wei Yang]

On Fri, May 29, 2026 at 09:42:02AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
>On Fri, May 29, 2026 at 09:56:28AM +0000, Wei Yang wrote:
>> On Wed, May 27, 2026 at 04:45:12PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
>> >The MEMCG and !MEMCG paths have the same pattern. Share the code.
>> >
>> >Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand (Arm) <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> >Acked-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@xxxxxxxxx>
>> >Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes (Oracle) <ljs@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> >Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >Reviewed-by: Liam R. Howlett (Oracle) <liam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >---
>> > mm/list_lru.c | 21 +++++++++------------
>> > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>> >
>> >diff --git a/mm/list_lru.c b/mm/list_lru.c
>> >index 7d0523e44010..fdb3fe2ea64f 100644
>> >--- a/mm/list_lru.c
>> >+++ b/mm/list_lru.c
>> >@@ -15,6 +15,14 @@
>> > #include "slab.h"
>> > #include "internal.h"
>> 
>> Hi, Johannes
>> 
>> One very tiny nit below.
>> 
>> > 
>> >+static inline void lock_list_lru(struct list_lru_one *l, bool irq)
>> 
>> Here we use @irq.
>> 
>> >+{
>> >+	if (irq)
>> >+		spin_lock_irq(&l->lock);
>> >+	else
>> >+		spin_lock(&l->lock);
>> >+}
>> >+
>> > static inline void unlock_list_lru(struct list_lru_one *l, bool irq_off)
>> 
>> Here we use @irq_off.
>> 
>> Do you think it would be nicer to unify the parameter name?
>
>Yes, I think it would be nicer.
>
>Note that I inherited this - we had irq on the lock and irq_off on the
>unlock before already. I didn't want to mix even more yak shaving prep
>patches into this series.

Reasonable.

>
>Mind sending a follow-up patch on top of mm-unstable?

Thanks, I am glad to.

Since this is trivial, I would wait until everything is settle down.

Looks good to you?

-- 
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me