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

[Michal Koutný]

On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 04:03:21PM +0200, Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 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.

This makes it sound like we were discussing tabs-vs-spaces (at least I
perceive there are more benefits of guard locks ;-))

(I also believe that the encouraged separation per lock (locking type)
would allow easier backporting of this transformation.)

> > But, again, I'm not against it. Johannes, any second thoughts?
> 
> Yeah, letting the primitives get used organically in new code and
> patches sounds better to me than retrofitting it into an existing
> function graph that wasn't designed with these in mind.

But OK, it sounds there's no objection against combining *_lock calling-
and guarded code at one time, so in the future the ratio of those two
may be more favorable for one-time switch to the latter.

I thank Jemmy for giving the preview of the transformation.


Michal

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature