From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>
To: Pavel Reichl <preichl@redhat.com>, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] xfs: Refactor xfs_isilocked()
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 16:27:48 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <f23e8fa9-2e41-e65f-0ff7-69205ce55e5b@sandeen.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200211221018.709125-1-preichl@redhat.com>
On 2/11/20 4:10 PM, Pavel Reichl wrote:
> Refactor xfs_isilocked() to use newly introduced __xfs_rwsem_islocked().
> __xfs_rwsem_islocked() is a helper function which encapsulates checking
> state of rw_semaphores hold by inode.
>
> Signed-off-by: Pavel Reichl <preichl@redhat.com>
> Suggested-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
> Suggested-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
> ---
> Changelog from V3:
> Added ASSERTS() to isilocked() to make sure that only flags for a single
> type of lock are passed
So while I like the ASSERTs going forward, the problem here is that a bisect
will now be broken between this and patch three. Sorry to do this to you,
but I think you should probably add the asserts in patch 3 so that you fix
the wrong calls and add the protective asserts at the same time.
Also, since your next patch fixes whitespace, I guess this:
+ ASSERT(!(lock_flags & ~(XFS_ILOCK_EXCL|XFS_ILOCK_SHARED)));
should observe the same rules around " | "
-Eric
>
> fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
> fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h | 2 +-
> 2 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
> index c5077e6326c7..cfefa7543b37 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
> @@ -345,32 +345,57 @@ xfs_ilock_demote(
> }
>
> #if defined(DEBUG) || defined(XFS_WARN)
> -int
> +static inline bool
> +__xfs_rwsem_islocked(
> + struct rw_semaphore *rwsem,
> + bool shared,
> + bool excl)
> +{
> + bool locked = false;
> +
> + if (!rwsem_is_locked(rwsem))
> + return false;
> +
> + if (!debug_locks)
> + return true;
> +
> + if (shared)
> + locked = lockdep_is_held_type(rwsem, 0);
> +
> + if (excl)
> + locked |= lockdep_is_held_type(rwsem, 1);
> +
> + return locked;
> +}
> +
> +bool
> xfs_isilocked(
> - xfs_inode_t *ip,
> + struct xfs_inode *ip,
> uint lock_flags)
> {
> if (lock_flags & (XFS_ILOCK_EXCL|XFS_ILOCK_SHARED)) {
> - if (!(lock_flags & XFS_ILOCK_SHARED))
> - return !!ip->i_lock.mr_writer;
> - return rwsem_is_locked(&ip->i_lock.mr_lock);
> + ASSERT(!(lock_flags & ~(XFS_ILOCK_EXCL|XFS_ILOCK_SHARED)));
> + return __xfs_rwsem_islocked(&ip->i_lock.mr_lock,
> + (lock_flags & XFS_ILOCK_SHARED),
> + (lock_flags & XFS_ILOCK_EXCL));
> }
>
> if (lock_flags & (XFS_MMAPLOCK_EXCL|XFS_MMAPLOCK_SHARED)) {
> - if (!(lock_flags & XFS_MMAPLOCK_SHARED))
> - return !!ip->i_mmaplock.mr_writer;
> - return rwsem_is_locked(&ip->i_mmaplock.mr_lock);
> + ASSERT(!(lock_flags & ~(XFS_MMAPLOCK_EXCL|XFS_MMAPLOCK_SHARED)));
> + return __xfs_rwsem_islocked(&ip->i_mmaplock.mr_lock,
> + (lock_flags & XFS_MMAPLOCK_SHARED),
> + (lock_flags & XFS_MMAPLOCK_EXCL));
> }
>
> if (lock_flags & (XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL|XFS_IOLOCK_SHARED)) {
> - if (!(lock_flags & XFS_IOLOCK_SHARED))
> - return !debug_locks ||
> - lockdep_is_held_type(&VFS_I(ip)->i_rwsem, 0);
> - return rwsem_is_locked(&VFS_I(ip)->i_rwsem);
> + ASSERT(!(lock_flags & ~(XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL|XFS_IOLOCK_SHARED)));
> + return __xfs_rwsem_islocked(&VFS_I(ip)->i_rwsem,
> + (lock_flags & XFS_IOLOCK_SHARED),
> + (lock_flags & XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL));
> }
>
> ASSERT(0);
> - return 0;
> + return false;
> }
> #endif
>
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h
> index 492e53992fa9..3d7ce355407d 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h
> @@ -416,7 +416,7 @@ void xfs_ilock(xfs_inode_t *, uint);
> int xfs_ilock_nowait(xfs_inode_t *, uint);
> void xfs_iunlock(xfs_inode_t *, uint);
> void xfs_ilock_demote(xfs_inode_t *, uint);
> -int xfs_isilocked(xfs_inode_t *, uint);
> +bool xfs_isilocked(xfs_inode_t *, uint);
> uint xfs_ilock_data_map_shared(struct xfs_inode *);
> uint xfs_ilock_attr_map_shared(struct xfs_inode *);
>
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-02-11 22:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-02-11 22:10 [PATCH v4 1/4] xfs: Refactor xfs_isilocked() Pavel Reichl
2020-02-11 22:10 ` [PATCH v4 2/4] xfs: Fix WS in xfs_isilocked() calls Pavel Reichl
2020-02-12 0:35 ` Dave Chinner
2020-02-11 22:10 ` [PATCH v4 3/4] xfs: Fix bug when checking diff. locks Pavel Reichl
2020-02-12 0:38 ` Dave Chinner
2020-02-11 22:10 ` [PATCH v4 4/4] xfs: Replace mrlock_t by rw_semaphore Pavel Reichl
2020-02-12 0:49 ` Dave Chinner
2020-02-11 22:27 ` Eric Sandeen [this message]
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=f23e8fa9-2e41-e65f-0ff7-69205ce55e5b@sandeen.net \
--to=sandeen@sandeen.net \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=preichl@redhat.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox