I should sent this together with the previous reply, but I forgot as usual, sorry.
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 18:26:18 +0000 Dmitry Ilvokhin <[email protected]> wrote: > Add thin wrappers around zone lock acquire/release operations. This > prepares the code for future tracepoint instrumentation without > modifying individual call sites. > > Centralizing zone lock operations behind wrappers allows future > instrumentation or debugging hooks to be added without touching > all users. > > No functional change intended. The wrappers are introduced in > preparation for subsequent patches and are not yet used. > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Ilvokhin <[email protected]> > Acked-by: Shakeel Butt <[email protected]> > --- [...] > --- /dev/null > +++ b/include/linux/zone_lock.h > @@ -0,0 +1,38 @@ > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */ > +#ifndef _LINUX_ZONE_LOCK_H > +#define _LINUX_ZONE_LOCK_H > + > +#include <linux/mmzone.h> > +#include <linux/spinlock.h> > + > +static inline void zone_lock_init(struct zone *zone) > +{ > + spin_lock_init(&zone->lock); > +} > + > +#define zone_lock_irqsave(zone, flags) \ > +do { \ > + spin_lock_irqsave(&(zone)->lock, flags); \ > +} while (0) checkpatch.pl complains as below. Should be ok to ignore, but, may better to kindly make it silence? WARNING: Single statement macros should not use a do {} while (0) loop #116: FILE: include/linux/zone_lock.h:13: +#define zone_lock_irqsave(zone, flags) \ +do { \ + spin_lock_irqsave(&(zone)->lock, flags); \ +} while (0) Thanks, SJ [...]
