From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] btrfs_get_tree_subvol(): switch from fc_mount() to vfs_create_mount()
Date: Mon, 5 May 2025 20:21:11 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250505192111.GH2023217@ZenIV> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250505175807.GB9140@twin.jikos.cz>
On Mon, May 05, 2025 at 07:58:07PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> > - if (fc->sb_flags & SB_RDONLY)
> > - return ret;
> > -
> > - down_write(&mnt->mnt_sb->s_umount);
> > - if (!(fc->sb_flags & SB_RDONLY) && (mnt->mnt_sb->s_flags & SB_RDONLY))
> > + if (!(fc->sb_flags & SB_RDONLY) && (fc->root->d_sb->s_flags & SB_RDONLY))
> > ret = btrfs_reconfigure(fc);
> > - up_write(&mnt->mnt_sb->s_umount);
> So this open codes fc_mount(), which is vfs_get_tree() + vfs_create_mount(),
> the only difference I see in the new code is that
> btrfs_reconfigure_for_mount() dropped the SB_RDONLY check.
>
> Why the check is there is explained in the lengthy comment above
> btrfs_reconfigure_for_mount(), so it should stay. If it can be removed
> then it should be a separate patch from the cleanup.
What do you mean, dropped? It's still right there - the current
variant checks it *twice*, once before grabbing ->s_umount, then
after it's been grabbed. Checking it before down_write() makes sense
if we are called after ->s_umount had been dropped (by fc_mount()).
I'm not sure why you recheck it after down_write(), since it's not
going to change, but you do recheck it. In this variant we don't need
to bother grabbing the rwsem, since that thing is called while ->s_umount
is still held...
I can turn that into
if (fc->sb_flags & SB_RDONLY)
return ret;
if (fc->root->d_sb->s_flags & SB_RDONLY)
ret = btrfs_reconfigure(fc);
return ret;
but I don't see how it's better than the variant posted; up to you, of course...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-05-05 19:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-05-05 3:03 [RFC][PATCH] btrfs_get_tree_subvol(): switch from fc_mount() to vfs_create_mount() Al Viro
2025-05-05 17:58 ` David Sterba
2025-05-05 19:21 ` Al Viro [this message]
2025-05-06 13:36 ` Klara Modin
2025-05-06 16:43 ` Al Viro
2025-05-06 16:48 ` Klara Modin
2025-05-06 17:25 ` Al Viro
2025-05-06 17:47 ` Klara Modin
2025-05-06 17:51 ` Al Viro
2025-05-06 17:54 ` Klara Modin
2025-05-06 18:16 ` Al Viro
2025-05-06 18:34 ` Klara Modin
2025-05-06 19:05 ` Al Viro
2025-05-06 19:20 ` Klara Modin
2025-05-06 19:48 ` Al Viro
2025-05-06 18:58 ` Klara Modin
2025-05-06 19:33 ` Al Viro
2025-05-06 19:44 ` Klara Modin
2025-05-06 19:34 ` [PATCH v2] " Al Viro
2025-05-06 19:52 ` Klara Modin
2025-05-06 20:00 ` Al Viro
2025-05-06 19:58 ` [PATCH v3] " Al Viro
2025-05-08 9:29 ` Qu Wenruo
2025-06-03 7:59 ` David Sterba
2025-06-03 9:23 ` Qu Wenruo
2025-06-03 19:38 ` David Sterba
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=20250505192111.GH2023217@ZenIV \
--to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=dsterba@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).