Linux Virtualization - Apr 2018 - [PATCH v29 1/4] mm: support reporting free page blocks

On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 21:19:31 +0300 "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at
redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> Andrew, were your questions answered? If yes could I bother you for an ack
on this?
> 
Still not very happy that readers are told that "this function may
sleep" when it clearly doesn't do so.  If we wish to be able to change
it to sleep in the future then that should be mentioned.  And even put a
might_sleep() in there, to catch people who didn't read the comments...

Otherwise it looks OK.

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 01:54:29PM -0700, Andrew Morton
wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 21:19:31 +0300 "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst
at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Andrew, were your questions answered? If yes could I bother you for an
ack on this?
> > 
> 
> Still not very happy that readers are told that "this function may
> sleep" when it clearly doesn't do so.  If we wish to be able to
change
> it to sleep in the future then that should be mentioned.  And even put a
> might_sleep() in there, to catch people who didn't read the comments...
> 
> Otherwise it looks OK.
Oh, might_sleep with a comment explaining it's for the future sounds
good to me. I queued this - Wei, could you post a patch on top pls?

-- 
MST

On 04/11/2018 07:25 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 01:54:29PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 21:19:31 +0300 "Michael S. Tsirkin"
<mst at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Andrew, were your questions answered? If yes could I bother you for
an ack on this?
>>>
>> Still not very happy that readers are told that "this function may
>> sleep" when it clearly doesn't do so.  If we wish to be able
to change
>> it to sleep in the future then that should be mentioned.  And even put
a
>> might_sleep() in there, to catch people who didn't read the
comments...
>>
>> Otherwise it looks OK.
> Oh, might_sleep with a comment explaining it's for the future sounds
> good to me. I queued this - Wei, could you post a patch on top pls?
>
I'm just thinking if it would be necessary to add another might_sleep, 
because we've had a cond_resched there which has wrapped a __might_sleep.

Best,
Wei