public inbox for linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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 *);
>  
> 

      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