All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Cc: peterz@infradead.org, mingo@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
	walken@google.com, kirill@shutemov.name,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
	npiggin@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 01/13] lockdep: Refactor lookup_chain_cache()
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 16:53:27 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170126075326.GB16086@X58A-UD3R> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170119091627.GG15084@tardis.cn.ibm.com>

I added a comment that you recommanded after modifying a bit, like the
following. Please let me know if the my sentence is rather awkward.

Thank you.

----->8-----
commit bb8ad95a4944eec6ab72e950ef063960791b0d8c
Author: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
Date:   Tue Jan 24 16:44:16 2017 +0900

    lockdep: Refactor lookup_chain_cache()
    
    Currently, lookup_chain_cache() provides both 'lookup' and 'add'
    functionalities in a function. However, each is useful. So this
    patch makes lookup_chain_cache() only do 'lookup' functionality and
    makes add_chain_cahce() only do 'add' functionality. And it's more
    readable than before.
    
    Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>

diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
index 4d7ffc0..0c6e6b7 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
@@ -2110,14 +2110,15 @@ static int check_no_collision(struct task_struct *curr,
 }
 
 /*
- * Look up a dependency chain. If the key is not present yet then
- * add it and return 1 - in this case the new dependency chain is
- * validated. If the key is already hashed, return 0.
- * (On return with 1 graph_lock is held.)
+ * Adds a dependency chain into chain hashtable. And must be called with
+ * graph_lock held.
+ *
+ * Return 0 if fail, and graph_lock is released.
+ * Return 1 if succeed, with graph_lock held.
  */
-static inline int lookup_chain_cache(struct task_struct *curr,
-				     struct held_lock *hlock,
-				     u64 chain_key)
+static inline int add_chain_cache(struct task_struct *curr,
+				  struct held_lock *hlock,
+				  u64 chain_key)
 {
 	struct lock_class *class = hlock_class(hlock);
 	struct hlist_head *hash_head = chainhashentry(chain_key);
@@ -2125,49 +2126,18 @@ static inline int lookup_chain_cache(struct task_struct *curr,
 	int i, j;
 
 	/*
+	 * Allocate a new chain entry from the static array, and add
+	 * it to the hash:
+	 */
+
+	/*
 	 * We might need to take the graph lock, ensure we've got IRQs
 	 * disabled to make this an IRQ-safe lock.. for recursion reasons
 	 * lockdep won't complain about its own locking errors.
 	 */
 	if (DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(!irqs_disabled()))
 		return 0;
-	/*
-	 * We can walk it lock-free, because entries only get added
-	 * to the hash:
-	 */
-	hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(chain, hash_head, entry) {
-		if (chain->chain_key == chain_key) {
-cache_hit:
-			debug_atomic_inc(chain_lookup_hits);
-			if (!check_no_collision(curr, hlock, chain))
-				return 0;
 
-			if (very_verbose(class))
-				printk("\nhash chain already cached, key: "
-					"%016Lx tail class: [%p] %s\n",
-					(unsigned long long)chain_key,
-					class->key, class->name);
-			return 0;
-		}
-	}
-	if (very_verbose(class))
-		printk("\nnew hash chain, key: %016Lx tail class: [%p] %s\n",
-			(unsigned long long)chain_key, class->key, class->name);
-	/*
-	 * Allocate a new chain entry from the static array, and add
-	 * it to the hash:
-	 */
-	if (!graph_lock())
-		return 0;
-	/*
-	 * We have to walk the chain again locked - to avoid duplicates:
-	 */
-	hlist_for_each_entry(chain, hash_head, entry) {
-		if (chain->chain_key == chain_key) {
-			graph_unlock();
-			goto cache_hit;
-		}
-	}
 	if (unlikely(nr_lock_chains >= MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAINS)) {
 		if (!debug_locks_off_graph_unlock())
 			return 0;
@@ -2219,6 +2189,75 @@ static inline int lookup_chain_cache(struct task_struct *curr,
 	return 1;
 }
 
+/*
+ * Look up a dependency chain.
+ */
+static inline struct lock_chain *lookup_chain_cache(u64 chain_key)
+{
+	struct hlist_head *hash_head = chainhashentry(chain_key);
+	struct lock_chain *chain;
+
+	/*
+	 * We can walk it lock-free, because entries only get added
+	 * to the hash:
+	 */
+	hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(chain, hash_head, entry) {
+		if (chain->chain_key == chain_key) {
+			debug_atomic_inc(chain_lookup_hits);
+			return chain;
+		}
+	}
+	return NULL;
+}
+
+/*
+ * If the key is not present yet in dependency chain cache then
+ * add it and return 1 - in this case the new dependency chain is
+ * validated. If the key is already hashed, return 0.
+ * (On return with 1 graph_lock is held.)
+ */
+static inline int lookup_chain_cache_add(struct task_struct *curr,
+					 struct held_lock *hlock,
+					 u64 chain_key)
+{
+	struct lock_class *class = hlock_class(hlock);
+	struct lock_chain *chain = lookup_chain_cache(chain_key);
+
+	if (chain) {
+cache_hit:
+		if (!check_no_collision(curr, hlock, chain))
+			return 0;
+
+		if (very_verbose(class))
+			printk("\nhash chain already cached, key: "
+					"%016Lx tail class: [%p] %s\n",
+					(unsigned long long)chain_key,
+					class->key, class->name);
+		return 0;
+	}
+
+	if (very_verbose(class))
+		printk("\nnew hash chain, key: %016Lx tail class: [%p] %s\n",
+			(unsigned long long)chain_key, class->key, class->name);
+
+	if (!graph_lock())
+		return 0;
+
+	/*
+	 * We have to walk the chain again locked - to avoid duplicates:
+	 */
+	chain = lookup_chain_cache(chain_key);
+	if (chain) {
+		graph_unlock();
+		goto cache_hit;
+	}
+
+	if (!add_chain_cache(curr, hlock, chain_key))
+		return 0;
+
+	return 1;
+}
+
 static int validate_chain(struct task_struct *curr, struct lockdep_map *lock,
 		struct held_lock *hlock, int chain_head, u64 chain_key)
 {
@@ -2229,11 +2268,11 @@ static int validate_chain(struct task_struct *curr, struct lockdep_map *lock,
 	 *
 	 * We look up the chain_key and do the O(N^2) check and update of
 	 * the dependencies only if this is a new dependency chain.
-	 * (If lookup_chain_cache() returns with 1 it acquires
+	 * (If lookup_chain_cache_add() return with 1 it acquires
 	 * graph_lock for us)
 	 */
 	if (!hlock->trylock && hlock->check &&
-	    lookup_chain_cache(curr, hlock, chain_key)) {
+	    lookup_chain_cache_add(curr, hlock, chain_key)) {
 		/*
 		 * Check whether last held lock:
 		 *
@@ -2264,9 +2303,10 @@ static int validate_chain(struct task_struct *curr, struct lockdep_map *lock,
 		if (!chain_head && ret != 2)
 			if (!check_prevs_add(curr, hlock))
 				return 0;
+
 		graph_unlock();
 	} else
-		/* after lookup_chain_cache(): */
+		/* after lookup_chain_cache_add(): */
 		if (unlikely(!debug_locks))
 			return 0;
 

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Cc: peterz@infradead.org, mingo@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
	walken@google.com, kirill@shutemov.name,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
	npiggin@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 01/13] lockdep: Refactor lookup_chain_cache()
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 16:53:27 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170126075326.GB16086@X58A-UD3R> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170119091627.GG15084@tardis.cn.ibm.com>

I added a comment that you recommanded after modifying a bit, like the
following. Please let me know if the my sentence is rather awkward.

Thank you.

----->8-----
commit bb8ad95a4944eec6ab72e950ef063960791b0d8c
Author: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
Date:   Tue Jan 24 16:44:16 2017 +0900

    lockdep: Refactor lookup_chain_cache()
    
    Currently, lookup_chain_cache() provides both 'lookup' and 'add'
    functionalities in a function. However, each is useful. So this
    patch makes lookup_chain_cache() only do 'lookup' functionality and
    makes add_chain_cahce() only do 'add' functionality. And it's more
    readable than before.
    
    Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>

diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
index 4d7ffc0..0c6e6b7 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
@@ -2110,14 +2110,15 @@ static int check_no_collision(struct task_struct *curr,
 }
 
 /*
- * Look up a dependency chain. If the key is not present yet then
- * add it and return 1 - in this case the new dependency chain is
- * validated. If the key is already hashed, return 0.
- * (On return with 1 graph_lock is held.)
+ * Adds a dependency chain into chain hashtable. And must be called with
+ * graph_lock held.
+ *
+ * Return 0 if fail, and graph_lock is released.
+ * Return 1 if succeed, with graph_lock held.
  */
-static inline int lookup_chain_cache(struct task_struct *curr,
-				     struct held_lock *hlock,
-				     u64 chain_key)
+static inline int add_chain_cache(struct task_struct *curr,
+				  struct held_lock *hlock,
+				  u64 chain_key)
 {
 	struct lock_class *class = hlock_class(hlock);
 	struct hlist_head *hash_head = chainhashentry(chain_key);
@@ -2125,49 +2126,18 @@ static inline int lookup_chain_cache(struct task_struct *curr,
 	int i, j;
 
 	/*
+	 * Allocate a new chain entry from the static array, and add
+	 * it to the hash:
+	 */
+
+	/*
 	 * We might need to take the graph lock, ensure we've got IRQs
 	 * disabled to make this an IRQ-safe lock.. for recursion reasons
 	 * lockdep won't complain about its own locking errors.
 	 */
 	if (DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(!irqs_disabled()))
 		return 0;
-	/*
-	 * We can walk it lock-free, because entries only get added
-	 * to the hash:
-	 */
-	hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(chain, hash_head, entry) {
-		if (chain->chain_key == chain_key) {
-cache_hit:
-			debug_atomic_inc(chain_lookup_hits);
-			if (!check_no_collision(curr, hlock, chain))
-				return 0;
 
-			if (very_verbose(class))
-				printk("\nhash chain already cached, key: "
-					"%016Lx tail class: [%p] %s\n",
-					(unsigned long long)chain_key,
-					class->key, class->name);
-			return 0;
-		}
-	}
-	if (very_verbose(class))
-		printk("\nnew hash chain, key: %016Lx tail class: [%p] %s\n",
-			(unsigned long long)chain_key, class->key, class->name);
-	/*
-	 * Allocate a new chain entry from the static array, and add
-	 * it to the hash:
-	 */
-	if (!graph_lock())
-		return 0;
-	/*
-	 * We have to walk the chain again locked - to avoid duplicates:
-	 */
-	hlist_for_each_entry(chain, hash_head, entry) {
-		if (chain->chain_key == chain_key) {
-			graph_unlock();
-			goto cache_hit;
-		}
-	}
 	if (unlikely(nr_lock_chains >= MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAINS)) {
 		if (!debug_locks_off_graph_unlock())
 			return 0;
@@ -2219,6 +2189,75 @@ static inline int lookup_chain_cache(struct task_struct *curr,
 	return 1;
 }
 
+/*
+ * Look up a dependency chain.
+ */
+static inline struct lock_chain *lookup_chain_cache(u64 chain_key)
+{
+	struct hlist_head *hash_head = chainhashentry(chain_key);
+	struct lock_chain *chain;
+
+	/*
+	 * We can walk it lock-free, because entries only get added
+	 * to the hash:
+	 */
+	hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(chain, hash_head, entry) {
+		if (chain->chain_key == chain_key) {
+			debug_atomic_inc(chain_lookup_hits);
+			return chain;
+		}
+	}
+	return NULL;
+}
+
+/*
+ * If the key is not present yet in dependency chain cache then
+ * add it and return 1 - in this case the new dependency chain is
+ * validated. If the key is already hashed, return 0.
+ * (On return with 1 graph_lock is held.)
+ */
+static inline int lookup_chain_cache_add(struct task_struct *curr,
+					 struct held_lock *hlock,
+					 u64 chain_key)
+{
+	struct lock_class *class = hlock_class(hlock);
+	struct lock_chain *chain = lookup_chain_cache(chain_key);
+
+	if (chain) {
+cache_hit:
+		if (!check_no_collision(curr, hlock, chain))
+			return 0;
+
+		if (very_verbose(class))
+			printk("\nhash chain already cached, key: "
+					"%016Lx tail class: [%p] %s\n",
+					(unsigned long long)chain_key,
+					class->key, class->name);
+		return 0;
+	}
+
+	if (very_verbose(class))
+		printk("\nnew hash chain, key: %016Lx tail class: [%p] %s\n",
+			(unsigned long long)chain_key, class->key, class->name);
+
+	if (!graph_lock())
+		return 0;
+
+	/*
+	 * We have to walk the chain again locked - to avoid duplicates:
+	 */
+	chain = lookup_chain_cache(chain_key);
+	if (chain) {
+		graph_unlock();
+		goto cache_hit;
+	}
+
+	if (!add_chain_cache(curr, hlock, chain_key))
+		return 0;
+
+	return 1;
+}
+
 static int validate_chain(struct task_struct *curr, struct lockdep_map *lock,
 		struct held_lock *hlock, int chain_head, u64 chain_key)
 {
@@ -2229,11 +2268,11 @@ static int validate_chain(struct task_struct *curr, struct lockdep_map *lock,
 	 *
 	 * We look up the chain_key and do the O(N^2) check and update of
 	 * the dependencies only if this is a new dependency chain.
-	 * (If lookup_chain_cache() returns with 1 it acquires
+	 * (If lookup_chain_cache_add() return with 1 it acquires
 	 * graph_lock for us)
 	 */
 	if (!hlock->trylock && hlock->check &&
-	    lookup_chain_cache(curr, hlock, chain_key)) {
+	    lookup_chain_cache_add(curr, hlock, chain_key)) {
 		/*
 		 * Check whether last held lock:
 		 *
@@ -2264,9 +2303,10 @@ static int validate_chain(struct task_struct *curr, struct lockdep_map *lock,
 		if (!chain_head && ret != 2)
 			if (!check_prevs_add(curr, hlock))
 				return 0;
+
 		graph_unlock();
 	} else
-		/* after lookup_chain_cache(): */
+		/* after lookup_chain_cache_add(): */
 		if (unlikely(!debug_locks))
 			return 0;
 

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  parent reply	other threads:[~2017-01-26  7:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 124+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-01-18 13:17 [PATCH v5 00/13] lockdep: Implement crossrelease feature Byungchul Park
2017-01-18 13:17 ` Byungchul Park
2017-01-18 13:17 ` [PATCH v5 01/13] lockdep: Refactor lookup_chain_cache() Byungchul Park
2017-01-18 13:17   ` Byungchul Park
2017-01-19  9:16   ` Boqun Feng
2017-01-19  9:52     ` Byungchul Park
2017-01-19  9:52       ` Byungchul Park
2017-01-26  7:53     ` Byungchul Park [this message]
2017-01-26  7:53       ` Byungchul Park
2017-01-18 13:17 ` [PATCH v5 02/13] lockdep: Fix wrong condition to print bug msgs for MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAIN_HLOCKS Byungchul Park
2017-01-18 13:17   ` Byungchul Park
2017-01-18 13:17 ` [PATCH v5 03/13] lockdep: Add a function building a chain between two classes Byungchul Park
2017-01-18 13:17   ` Byungchul Park
2017-01-18 13:17 ` [PATCH v5 04/13] lockdep: Refactor save_trace() Byungchul Park
2017-01-18 13:17   ` Byungchul Park
2017-01-18 13:17 ` [PATCH v5 05/13] lockdep: Pass a callback arg to check_prev_add() to handle stack_trace Byungchul Park
2017-01-18 13:17   ` Byungchul Park
2017-01-26  7:43   ` Byungchul Park
2017-01-26  7:43     ` Byungchul Park
2017-01-18 13:17 ` [PATCH v5 06/13] lockdep: Implement crossrelease feature Byungchul Park
2017-01-18 13:17   ` Byungchul Park
2017-02-28 12:26   ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-02-28 12:26     ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-02-28 12:45   ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-02-28 12:45     ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-02-28 12:49     ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-02-28 12:49       ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-03-01  6:20       ` Byungchul Park
2017-03-01  6:20         ` Byungchul Park
2017-02-28 13:05   ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-02-28 13:05     ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-02-28 13:28     ` Byungchul Park
2017-02-28 13:28       ` Byungchul Park
2017-02-28 13:35       ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-02-28 13:35         ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-02-28 14:00         ` Byungchul Park
2017-02-28 14:00           ` Byungchul Park
2017-02-28 13:10   ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-02-28 13:10     ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-02-28 13:24     ` Byungchul Park
2017-02-28 13:24       ` Byungchul Park
2017-02-28 18:29       ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-02-28 18:29         ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-03-01  4:40         ` Byungchul Park
2017-03-01  4:40           ` Byungchul Park
2017-03-01 10:45           ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-03-01 10:45             ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-03-01 12:10             ` Byungchul Park
2017-03-01 12:10               ` Byungchul Park
2017-02-28 13:40   ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-02-28 13:40     ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-03-01  5:43     ` Byungchul Park
2017-03-01  5:43       ` Byungchul Park
2017-03-01 12:28       ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-03-01 12:28         ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-03-02 13:40         ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-03-02 13:40           ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-03-03  0:17           ` Byungchul Park
2017-03-03  0:17             ` Byungchul Park
2017-03-03  8:14             ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-03-03  8:14               ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-03-03  9:13               ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-03-03  9:13                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-03-03  9:32                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-03-03  9:32                   ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-03-05  3:33                 ` Byungchul Park
2017-03-05  3:33                   ` Byungchul Park
2017-08-10 12:18                 ` [tip:locking/core] locking/lockdep: Avoid creating redundant links tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra
2017-03-05  3:08               ` [PATCH v5 06/13] lockdep: Implement crossrelease feature Byungchul Park
2017-03-05  3:08                 ` Byungchul Park
2017-03-07 11:42                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-03-07 11:42                   ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-03-03  0:39           ` Byungchul Park
2017-03-03  0:39             ` Byungchul Park
2017-02-28 15:49   ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-02-28 15:49     ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-03-01  5:17     ` Byungchul Park
2017-03-01  5:17       ` Byungchul Park
2017-03-01  6:18       ` Byungchul Park
2017-03-01  6:18         ` Byungchul Park
2017-03-02  2:52       ` Byungchul Park
2017-03-02  2:52         ` Byungchul Park
2017-02-28 18:15   ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-02-28 18:15     ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-03-01  7:21     ` Byungchul Park
2017-03-01  7:21       ` Byungchul Park
2017-03-01 10:43       ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-03-01 10:43         ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-03-01 12:27         ` Byungchul Park
2017-03-01 12:27           ` Byungchul Park
2017-03-02  4:20     ` Matthew Wilcox
2017-03-02  4:20       ` Matthew Wilcox
2017-03-02  4:45       ` byungchul.park
2017-03-02  4:45         ` byungchul.park
2017-03-02 14:39         ` Matthew Wilcox
2017-03-02 14:39           ` Matthew Wilcox
2017-03-02 23:50           ` Byungchul Park
2017-03-02 23:50             ` Byungchul Park
2017-03-05  8:01             ` Byungchul Park
2017-03-05  8:01               ` Byungchul Park
2017-03-14  7:36     ` Byungchul Park
2017-03-14  7:36       ` Byungchul Park
2017-03-02 13:41   ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-03-02 13:41     ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-03-02 23:43     ` Byungchul Park
2017-03-02 23:43       ` Byungchul Park
2017-01-18 13:17 ` [PATCH v5 07/13] lockdep: Make print_circular_bug() aware of crossrelease Byungchul Park
2017-01-18 13:17   ` Byungchul Park
2017-01-18 13:17 ` [PATCH v5 08/13] lockdep: Apply crossrelease to completions Byungchul Park
2017-01-18 13:17   ` Byungchul Park
2017-01-18 13:17 ` [PATCH v5 09/13] pagemap.h: Remove trailing white space Byungchul Park
2017-01-18 13:17   ` Byungchul Park
2017-01-18 13:17 ` [PATCH v5 10/13] lockdep: Apply crossrelease to PG_locked locks Byungchul Park
2017-01-18 13:17   ` Byungchul Park
2017-01-18 13:17 ` [PATCH v5 11/13] lockdep: Apply lock_acquire(release) on __Set(__Clear)PageLocked Byungchul Park
2017-01-18 13:17   ` Byungchul Park
2017-01-18 13:17 ` [PATCH v5 12/13] lockdep: Move data of CONFIG_LOCKDEP_PAGELOCK from page to page_ext Byungchul Park
2017-01-18 13:17   ` Byungchul Park
2017-01-18 13:17 ` [PATCH v5 13/13] lockdep: Crossrelease feature documentation Byungchul Park
2017-01-18 13:17   ` Byungchul Park
2017-01-20  9:08   ` [REVISED DOCUMENT] " Byungchul Park
2017-01-20  9:08     ` Byungchul Park
2017-02-20  8:38 ` [PATCH v5 00/13] lockdep: Implement crossrelease feature Byungchul Park
2017-02-20  8:38   ` Byungchul Park

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20170126075326.GB16086@X58A-UD3R \
    --to=byungchul.park@lge.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
    --cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
    --cc=kirill@shutemov.name \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=walken@google.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.