Re: [PATCH 1/4] seqlock: introduce scoped_seqlock_read() and scoped_seqlock_read_irqsave()

[Waiman Long]

On 10/7/25 1:18 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 10/07, Waiman Long wrote:
> > On 10/7/25 10:21 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > +
> > > +/* internal helper for scoped_seqlock_read/scoped_seqlock_read_irqsave */
> > > +static inline int
> > > +scoped_seqlock_read_retry(seqlock_t *lock, int *seq, unsigned long *flags)
> > I would suggest adding the "__" prefix to indicate that this is an internal
> > helper that shouldn't be called directly.
> OK, I will add "__", but I thought that "internal helper" makes it clear that
> it shouldn't be called directly. Nevermind, will do.
>
> > > +#define __scoped_seqlock_read(lock, lockless, seq)	\
> > > +	for (int lockless = 1, seq = read_seqbegin(lock);		\
> > > +	     lockless || scoped_seqlock_read_retry(lock, &seq, NULL);	\
> > > +	     lockless = 0)
> > I like Linus' suggestion of putting lockless and seq into a struct to make
> > it more consistent with __scoped_seqlock_read_irqsave().
> Again, will do. See my reply to Linus.
>
> > > +/**
> > > + * scoped_seqlock_read_irqsave(lock) - same as scoped_seqlock_read() but
> > > + *                                     disables irqs on a locking pass
> > > + * @lock: pointer to the seqlock_t protecting the data
> > Maybe we should we should add a comment saying that this API is similar to
> > scoped_seqlock_read() but with irqs disabled.
> Hmm... This is what the comment above tries to say... Do you think it can
> be improved?

Sorry, I missed that. Never mind :-)

Cheers,
Longman