Re: [PATCH V3 04/20] nvdimm/label: Update mutex_lock() with guard(mutex)()

Neeraj Kumar
2025-09-22T12:51:39Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2460 bytes --]

On 17/09/25 03:46PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>On Wed, 17 Sep 2025 18:59:24 +0530
>Neeraj Kumar <s.neeraj@samsung.com> wrote:
>
>> Updated mutex_lock() with guard(mutex)()
>
>Say why.

Sure, I will update it in next patch-set.

>>
>> Signed-off-by: Neeraj Kumar <s.neeraj@samsung.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/nvdimm/label.c | 36 +++++++++++++++++-------------------
>> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/nvdimm/label.c b/drivers/nvdimm/label.c
>> index 668e1e146229..3235562d0e1c 100644
>> --- a/drivers/nvdimm/label.c
>> +++ b/drivers/nvdimm/label.c
>> @@ -948,7 +948,7 @@ static int __pmem_label_update(struct nd_region *nd_region,
>> return rc;
>> + list_for_each_entry(label_ent, &nd_mapping->labels, list)
>> + if (!label_ent->label) {
>> + label_ent->label = nd_label;
>> + nd_label = NULL;
>> + break;
>
>Perhaps it will change in later patches, but you could have done
> if (!label_ent->label) {
> label_ent->label = nd_label;
> return;
> }
>as nothing else happens if we find a match.

Yes, I have updated it in later patch. I will update it here itself.

>
>> + }
>> @@ -998,9 +998,8 @@ static int init_labels(struct nd_mapping *nd_mapping, int num_labels)
>> label_ent = kzalloc(sizeof(*label_ent), GFP_KERNEL);
>> if (!label_ent)
>> return -ENOMEM;
>> - mutex_lock(&nd_mapping->lock);
>> + guard(mutex)(&nd_mapping->lock);
>> list_add_tail(&label_ent->list, &nd_mapping->labels);
>> - mutex_unlock(&nd_mapping->lock);
>
>Not sure I'd bother with cases like this but harmless.
>
>> }
>>
>> - mutex_lock(&nd_mapping->lock);
>> + guard(mutex)(&nd_mapping->lock);
>> list_for_each_entry_safe(label_ent, e, &nd_mapping->labels, list) {
>> struct nd_namespace_label *nd_label = label_ent->label;
>>
>> @@ -1061,7 +1060,6 @@ static int del_labels(struct nd_mapping *nd_mapping, uuid_t *uuid)
>> nd_mapping_free_labels(nd_mapping);
>> dev_dbg(ndd->dev, "no more active labels\n");
>> }
>> - mutex_unlock(&nd_mapping->lock);
>This is a potential functional change as the lock is held for longer than before.
>nd_label_write_index is not trivial so reviewing if that is safe is not trivial.
>
>The benefit is small so far (maybe that changes in later patches) so I would not
>make the change.

Sure, I will revert it back in next patch-set

Regards,
Neeraj

>
>
>
>>
>> return nd_label_write_index(ndd, ndd->ns_next,
>> nd_inc_seq(__le32_to_cpu(nsindex->seq)), 0);
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 0 bytes --]