Re: [PATCH RFC v2 03/10] locking/local_lock: Introduce localtry_lock_t

[Sebastian Andrzej Siewior]

On 2025-02-17 15:35:11 [+0100], Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > spin_trylock() is not safe due to explicit locking in the underneath
> > rt_spin_trylock() implementation. Removing this explicit locking and
> > attempting only "trylock" is undesired due to PI implications.
> 
> Just to be sure, you're suggesting how to reword that sentence in the
> changelog to make it more precise right?

Yes, just a reword. Everything else is fine by me. It just feels odd ack
my own patch.

> Alexei will you incorporate that in your version?
> 
> >> Note there is no need to use local_inc for acquired variable,
> >> since it's a percpu variable with strict nesting scopes.
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx>
> > 
> > Other than that, thank you two ;)
> 
> Thank you too :)
> 
> Do you agree with my fixups and addition here?
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/efc30cf9-8351-4889-8245-cc4a6893ebf4@xxxxxxx/

Yes, looks good.

Sebastian