Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] cgroup: Add lock guard support

[Tejun Heo]

On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 06:45:54PM +0800, Jemmy Wong wrote:
...
> > Tejun:
> >> There are no practical benefits to converting the code base at this point.
> > 
> > I'd expect future backports (into such code) to be more robust wrt
> > pairing errors.
> > At the same time this is also my biggest concern about this change, the
> > wide-spread diff would make current backporting more difficult.  (But
> > I'd counter argue that one should think forward here.)

Well, I'm not necessarily against it but I generally dislike wholesale
cleanups which create big patch application boundaries. If there are enough
practical benefits, sure, we should do it, but when it's things like this -
maybe possibly it's a bit better in the long term - the calculus isn't clear
cut. People can argue these things to high heavens on abstract grounds, but
if you break it down to practical gains vs. costs, it's not a huge
difference.

But, again, I'm not against it. Johannes, any second thoughts?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun