Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] userfaultfd: use per-vma locks in userfaultfd operations

[Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>]

On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 11:27 AM Liam R. Howlett
<Liam.Howlett@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> * Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@google.com> [240213 14:18]:
> ...
>
> > > > We could use something like uffd_prepare(), uffd_complete() but I
> > > > thought of those names rather late in the cycle, but I've already caused
> > > > many iterations of this patch set and that clean up didn't seem as vital
> > > > as simplicity and clarity of the locking code.
> >
> > I anyway have to send another version to fix the error handling that
> > you reported earlier. I can take care of this in that version.
> >
> > mfill_atomic...() functions (annoyingly) have to sometimes unlock and
> > relock. Using prepare/complete in that context seems incompatible.
> >
> > >
> > > Maybe lock_vma_for_uffd()/unlock_vma_for_uffd()? Whatever name is
> > > better I'm fine with it but all these #ifdef's sprinkled around don't
> > > contribute to the readability.
> >
> > I'll wait for an agreement on this because I too don't like using so
> > many ifdef's either.
> >
> > Since these functions are supposed to have prototype depending on
> > mfill/move, how about the following names:
> >
> > uffd_lock_mfill_vma()/uffd_unlock_mfill_vma()
> > uffd_lock_move_vmas()/uffd_unlock_move_vmas()
> >
> > Of course, I'm open to other suggestions as well.
> >
>
> I'm happy with those if you remove the vma/vmas from the name.

Sounds good to me.

>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kernel-team+unsubscribe@android.com.
>