From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm,fs: introduce helpers around i_mmap_mutex Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 13:58:22 -0700 Message-ID: <20131003135822.e0b2ca10fe5a460714bb82a3@linux-foundation.org> References: <1380745066-9925-1-git-send-email-davidlohr@hp.com> <1380745066-9925-2-git-send-email-davidlohr@hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , aswin@hp.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org To: Davidlohr Bueso Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1380745066-9925-2-git-send-email-davidlohr@hp.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:17:45 -0700 Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > Various parts of the kernel acquire and release this mutex, > so add i_mmap_lock_write() and immap_unlock_write() helper > functions that will encapsulate this logic. The next patch > will make use of these. > > ... > > --- a/include/linux/fs.h > +++ b/include/linux/fs.h > @@ -478,6 +478,16 @@ struct block_device { > > int mapping_tagged(struct address_space *mapping, int tag); > > +static inline void i_mmap_lock_write(struct address_space *mapping) > +{ > + mutex_lock(&mapping->i_mmap_mutex); > +} I don't understand the thinking behind the "_write". There is no "_read" and all callsites use "_write", so why not call it i_mmap_lock()? I *assume* the answer is "so we can later convert some sites to a new i_mmap_lock_read()". If so, the changelog should have discussed this. If not, still confused. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org