Re: [PATCH v5 5/9] mm: list_lru: deduplicate lock_list_lru()

[Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com>]

On Wed, May 27, 2026 at 04:45:12PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
>The MEMCG and !MEMCG paths have the same pattern. Share the code.
>
>Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand (Arm) <david@kernel.org>
>Acked-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>
>Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes (Oracle) <ljs@kernel.org>
>Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
>Reviewed-by: Liam R. Howlett (Oracle) <liam@infradead.org>
>---
> mm/list_lru.c | 21 +++++++++------------
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/mm/list_lru.c b/mm/list_lru.c
>index 7d0523e44010..fdb3fe2ea64f 100644
>--- a/mm/list_lru.c
>+++ b/mm/list_lru.c
>@@ -15,6 +15,14 @@
> #include "slab.h"
> #include "internal.h"

Hi, Johannes

One very tiny nit below.

> 
>+static inline void lock_list_lru(struct list_lru_one *l, bool irq)

Here we use @irq.

>+{
>+	if (irq)
>+		spin_lock_irq(&l->lock);
>+	else
>+		spin_lock(&l->lock);
>+}
>+
> static inline void unlock_list_lru(struct list_lru_one *l, bool irq_off)

Here we use @irq_off.

Do you think it would be nicer to unify the parameter name?

Also the name in callsite and the argument annotation. Would it be cleaner
readers?

-- 
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me