From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2995724E4C6 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 2026 04:13:29 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1789618410; cv=none; b=gdw60Xq2p5f8g/bh63hHgx1CuLT8wmYEEiTmhWuQ/fTa8H0SiWRmnm66UrB98LysyKvxe3by5A/hUBUHLVfOuk/gE2vsba2FQjKg+FxHNjLg7eHoIljACL9cCZpqtYe8yB0uoi/rtDQ/57hWcP/54vIV/e6SRuunG1u+B+xSLcs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1789618410; c=relaxed/simple; bh=qAjmzQOkudNDEGTZ1QxXxRznb+lc5DGMJhwArAn4v2c=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=CPm4kkngBpI2nF0jThMqPIJHNqMOm1t1V0OzjygIacKL3lWECE0k4pnIGyg8/W6PiiETRDfAaoplUwkTQ2/bTtC+ztaaVYUo8PGOEU+SPR+rZh46RFat26qKTEPsq/tvMGfBw5Ck4o0wZhu6Sjo0/9euS8KBEUFrFH/ft+oCags= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=fxPz/ppx; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="fxPz/ppx" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E2E751F00898; Thu, 17 Sep 2026 04:13:28 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1789618409; bh=qKssEIGWnmjPYyz6xTJmEXS0aqDYDt7y6eeMFQy9yqc=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=fxPz/ppxuhh/3KcxzL2QavW2ctNZAWTlZDCeoI5/vceVteHNnIfCFv3KszJ+M0ypo Kb4rSE8lXmV/3o0Wf3+tTKtgF7dCCMU99pdeQaJ1Lnr4DA8CSfAakVUD36JvT1vReU w8PVys3GU/rFvvif6uT/yJdh+r41Wzk1wqJmOL13PUvAILENc/eUm8160RYoiPmQ4o 0VwQNcL9CSE1HnXNabudDKycEZViDjqh8G9HYZpGZUsV0T4pLcNg879JwBuqavront dQYItg70ZuoZX3aFW4ryMbfAMTJHI7Vw7bEFNozwqY7VrsaqASNvjseshZe2Ci0/XW oSR5pc/VvLcQQ== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 04/10] mm/damon/core: set damon_ctx->walk_control_obsolete in damon_new_ctx() Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "SJ Park" Cc: damon@lists.linux.dev In-Reply-To: <20260917040537.107341-5-sj@kernel.org> References: <20260917040537.107341-1-sj@kernel.org> <20260917040537.107341-5-sj@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2026 04:13:28 +0000 Message-Id: <20260917041328.E2E751F00898@smtp.kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: damon@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: > damos_walk() should be called for a damon_ctx context that has > successfully started at least once. That's because > damon_ctx->walk_control_obsolete is initialized when kdamond starts. If > the rule is violated, an indefinite wait can happen. There is no > existing violation of the rule. >=20 > damon_call() had a similar rule, and it turned out keeping the rule is > not easy for damon_call()'s case. Hence, commit 8023b5f47e09 > ("mm/damon/core: set ctx->call_controls_obsolete in damon_new_ctx()") > added the initialization in damon_new_ctx() and removed the rule. >=20 > Keeping the rule for damos_walk() is relatively easier. But having > slightly different rules for similar functions could be confusing. > Sashiko, for example, repeatedly asked questions about this. Do the > initialization of walk_control_obsolete in damon_new_ctx() for > consistency. >=20 > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/20260915011614.102342-1-sj@kernel.org >=20 > Signed-off-by: SJ Park Sashiko has reviewed this patch and found no issues. It looks great! --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260917040537.1073= 41-1-sj@kernel.org?part=3D4