Re: linux-next: manual merge of the slab tree with the mm-unstable tree

[Vlastimil Babka]

On 11/20/25 14:31, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 12:55:38PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 10:13:40AM +0100, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
>> > We have the 'Context:' tag in kdoc. What about the following?
>> > 
>> > 	Context: Any context. Takes and releases pool->lock.
>> 
>> Which in this case would be ok.  But what about functions that take
>> non-irqsave spinlocks?
>> 
>> > I used the function in a tracepoint handler [0] and trusted its documentation
>> > to "never sleep". That turned out to be incorrect.
>> 
>> Heh, you'll find a lot of those..
> 
> Yeah... But people are working on fixing them.
> 
>> > Also see the discussion on the patch submission [1] about just this point,
>> > where we didn't come up with better wording.
>> 
>> Can we please start a discussion on this on say linux-doc and
>> linux-kernel?  I don't really have a good answer, but this current
>> idea feels a bit lacking.  I don't meant that as trying to block
>> this patch, but I think we need to come up with a better convention.
> 
> Make sense. Right now I don't really have the capacity to see this through,
> but hopefully I get to it later.
> My patch not really critical, so if it gets in the way it can be dropped.
> Nearly nobody is using this function anyways.
I've left your patch in the slab/for-next as-is.