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 53C1710E5; Sat, 21 Jun 2025 02:52:05 +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=1750474325; cv=none; b=Ws6AtcLQ0OAeI86+xq6mnDtoUcU85EVaZsLvj2FHaXDHkA65hMpvs5GR935F9hDvYEHx+KQ8C3lW7rizW3xV6UrmAmWGxniJkjG7k5/53X8tVF02se5Fm5FAQGJoEzjhNNp9f8V4/5ySStWanIRDJkI5BOTv+oHNPD3XMBKL+IU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1750474325; c=relaxed/simple; bh=rigipJFO4fTCXBuzkJ4bZAdNssvi68SvkL7+nqkrGYA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=c3IRdTTnmlASSVMw0C/jpJpPjXzFVeeNTINAiR8LouvFzqOVdIwezwXWADHCZO6EjxD8YqncJaaC0OB8s0eZGHVIznq7cr+nJ4Bwh49owEBPjSz6vgECY7/bKJXmzRgKIg1e/sQPd2eWk0MKJxSAQMlFm4R3/KJHKncB+XJzpQQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=dpXz8PpZ; 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="dpXz8PpZ" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BC1B1C4CEE3; Sat, 21 Jun 2025 02:52:04 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1750474324; bh=rigipJFO4fTCXBuzkJ4bZAdNssvi68SvkL7+nqkrGYA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=dpXz8PpZbh7UT4t/RXlTufAV83FiacKUYs++r4l4eHj7R7x8v38Q+5NsG+cgDWBV1 4UPhmrN2/0RfDhqoBtm7JyeObOPDYF6vvQPZQfp1/MEbOj/1vZQDxe0Ay0oIAGN/TW WZO/uRmCJWm+qVVhwmI6018QhDFya/betV8u7fWlpfgk4zxKG2SBaJaNFYkQlyKia1 EMuzRnBviyy8O5dpGLXtB4owz5Yuv0L/a9gtm46MDFmfmSZOMa7PjV9o/Bion4Kvkf Pvi8OSNJBF0wcXkK49prbDFU49Bq/y8nIxOMcwGWem1pHYNqyDiW030eF0c8uw16oJ aYnIUt22i0t6A== Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2025 16:52:03 -1000 From: Tejun Heo To: Jemmy Wong Cc: Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Koutn=FD?= , hannes@cmpxchg.org, Waiman Long , cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] cgroup: Add lock guard support Message-ID: References: <20250606161841.44354-1-jemmywong512@gmail.com> <2dd7rwkxuirjqpxzdvplt26vgfydomu56j3dkmr37765zk67pd@aou7jw4d6wtq> <9BDD726A-2EAE-46C3-9D00-004E051B8F5B@gmail.com> 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: <9BDD726A-2EAE-46C3-9D00-004E051B8F5B@gmail.com> On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 06:45:54PM +0800, Jemmy Wong wrote: ... > > Tejun: > >> There are no practical benefits to converting the code base at this point. > > > > I'd expect future backports (into such code) to be more robust wrt > > pairing errors. > > At the same time this is also my biggest concern about this change, the > > wide-spread diff would make current backporting more difficult. (But > > I'd counter argue that one should think forward here.) Well, I'm not necessarily against it but I generally dislike wholesale cleanups which create big patch application boundaries. If there are enough practical benefits, sure, we should do it, but when it's things like this - maybe possibly it's a bit better in the long term - the calculus isn't clear cut. People can argue these things to high heavens on abstract grounds, but if you break it down to practical gains vs. costs, it's not a huge difference. But, again, I'm not against it. Johannes, any second thoughts? Thanks. -- tejun