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

[Thomas Weißschuh]

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.


Thomas