From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 B4334199EBB; Wed, 29 Jan 2025 20:29:05 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1738182545; cv=none; b=BpsRXQSoBKFuna/MjxNYYD6Mu0XKPCh9+FzNJ4NgdGqL2x9UHxK8G64uwACYUyOIqekrByKP2zTy+aFpcGyCcZNHPU31TnvzdcmAhZFJYonQ7965wtZjcQbXxKJdVDlgASfgzTpPzv2xeNtwfM05qN7FqiSl0iMtl6wcMkDRVKk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1738182545; c=relaxed/simple; bh=7c0BhK33Y8biHBtDAej3fXyQRvPWekaU6HWTBIgNjSI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=nRl/ubmdk7Ne5gxJXbMo9RgdQwUjFvKX4pilpVc+68RmqBdxih8W93IsIRdYjcvu4byMdTpcbkDI+LVJf7IARw18/zPZM2NwWtxRqn4ZkM5nqGitkUbwjnZLMGI96iMWCVTQ7+4t59xwMIlXRFm9e167pHZ6vvgokMivOuQe6yk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=QBiSdO5t; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="QBiSdO5t" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E2637C4CED1; Wed, 29 Jan 2025 20:29:04 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1738182545; bh=7c0BhK33Y8biHBtDAej3fXyQRvPWekaU6HWTBIgNjSI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=QBiSdO5tLLfaCjdxu1nBodq1W2b+feTFKpJECfu8xiNakdNTCnmR4F6OBfGYtQ44c qd8QPRho9s45dSiSldT7HtuLZIP4pMBIWy8GKIkxSu0tkr4wKxfc3N3DotH0vLnHHr kf3oAH7oseWs3l1gRqKWCYPGd6GqHpOxhAjwI8EUKBqKOr4JH1f0ulOPM8U8SlVyRw OJB+xDtwuBCSI72Qg3aiVXmTwvB6TJX5l52UJOW80thGB73EcQIFD2yZXtdrjGpXy4 3XqJNlimblzKbfIY2519pE7pozCJN68AhtBIEHvhD3LkVpsro1ZRfZmTQ9lJtiPjpI z2yNW/fZlXd8Q== Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2025 10:29:03 -1000 From: Tejun Heo To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Cc: cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Koutn=FD?= , "Paul E. McKenney" , Boqun Feng , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Hillf Danton , Johannes Weiner , Marco Elver , tglx@linutronix.de Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 5/6] kernfs: Use RCU to access kernfs_node::parent. Message-ID: References: <20250128084226.1499291-1-bigeasy@linutronix.de> <20250128084226.1499291-6-bigeasy@linutronix.de> <20250129132311.rQM6LtB2@linutronix.de> <20250129202614.eK7sf6Jt@linutronix.de> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250129202614.eK7sf6Jt@linutronix.de> On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 09:26:14PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: ... > > Hmm... I would have gone with using the same accessor everywhere but am not > > sure how strongly I feel about it. I don't think it's useful to worry about > > the overhead of the extra lockdep annotations in debug builds. Ignoring that > > and just considering code readability, what would you do? > > It is your call. I would prefer to open code that part that we do only > rely on RCU here but sure understand that you don't care about the > details and want to have only one accessor. It's kinda nitpicky. Let's just keep what you did. Thanks. -- tejun