From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (lindbergh.monkeyblade.net [23.128.96.19]) (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 21E1C28DDE for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2023 14:02:02 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.cz header.i=@suse.cz header.b="mhnERuMs"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=suse.cz header.i=@suse.cz header.b="3ZuEblM3" Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [195.135.220.28]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45F60189 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2023 07:02:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 80A6B21DDA; Wed, 25 Oct 2023 14:01:57 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1698242517; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=4xynCP93Xhc9ZGGEVa3rs7gHpVCYsgLgRpaTktTr2VI=; b=mhnERuMsNwM8IDzLPgr9LLZvYuwtGqr2fddMgUfRH06u2PPpZ+9l0X2WA2ZeCgdMAjOAiP 7ONbudz18ijstqrXYOEidDYtYS/m4KkA+CBslpOwry2bTFQQPZDTCTrQUgfQ6ueT61fI02 mCGu4PR5XCBOpUDxg/QZnQ34RiWD9eg= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1698242517; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=4xynCP93Xhc9ZGGEVa3rs7gHpVCYsgLgRpaTktTr2VI=; b=3ZuEblM3xthbNGuN7iD/pAiivJzlrqzqOfn/TW3u7uo+32LCk2I53KisflBiUTNAewTLuE ++KWYkTdhFVW/jBw== Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7566213524; Wed, 25 Oct 2023 14:01:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id ZfShHNUfOWXfEAAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Wed, 25 Oct 2023 14:01:57 +0000 Received: by quack3.suse.cz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 180F1A05BC; Wed, 25 Oct 2023 16:01:57 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2023 16:01:57 +0200 From: Jan Kara To: Christian Brauner Cc: Jan Kara , Christoph Hellwig , "Darrick J. Wong" , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/10] fs: massage locking helpers Message-ID: <20231025140157.5ro56xffebaflhy2@quack3> References: <20231024-vfs-super-freeze-v2-0-599c19f4faac@kernel.org> <20231024-vfs-super-freeze-v2-1-599c19f4faac@kernel.org> <20231025123449.sek6wu5aafztfcwy@quack3> <20231025-ungnade-betanken-29f7b98d0265@brauner> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@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: <20231025-ungnade-betanken-29f7b98d0265@brauner> Authentication-Results: smtp-out1.suse.de; none X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Score: -6.60 X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-6.60 / 50.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-3.00)[-1.000]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; RCPT_COUNT_FIVE(0.00)[5]; DKIM_SIGNED(0.00)[suse.cz:s=susede2_rsa,suse.cz:s=susede2_ed25519]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-1.00)[-1.000]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; MID_RHS_NOT_FQDN(0.50)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; BAYES_HAM(-3.00)[99.99%] On Wed 25-10-23 15:21:06, Christian Brauner wrote: > > Here if locked == true but say !(sb->s_flags & SB_ACTIVE), we fail to > > unlock the superblock now AFAICT. > > Yeah, I've already fixed that up in-tree. I realized this because I've > fixed it correctly in the last patch. > > > And here if you really mean it with some kind of clean bail out, we should > > somehow get rid of the s_active reference we have. But exactly because of > > that getting super_lock_excl() failure here would be really weird... > > > > Otherwise the patch looks good. > > With the above fix folded in can I take your Ack? Yes. Feel free to add: Reviewed-by: Jan Kara Honza -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR