From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E21CDC433E0 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 15:07:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FD0E64E05 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 15:07:21 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 7FD0E64E05 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:55234 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l5VMm-0005Sx-Eh for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 10:07:20 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:51414) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l5VK7-0004AJ-QZ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 10:04:36 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([63.128.21.124]:38426) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l5VK3-0001g0-FF for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 10:04:35 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1611932670; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject: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=nOB+RZu2s5/hddLeTpiFLae2L60CCzIyMqqUiCHTStc=; b=JL7ile4B+A8I9VWNJwhfOIPPxWgiM0ixev2n6t7llT1tsbEOUQSliGY8eLQmrGKhOg/Fah eGkHCqvvqa1roP4RnH8F0n2dBqRjY90gNLXbirqb3MlTIATzYwqoBO1Xqew6L4WVIOrjL8 4vRXaGWYpXKnPB2MMOkBi3qCr2mpjpo= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-450-i-1uGEQ4O4aNz-wORgcE0A-1; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 10:04:28 -0500 X-MC-Unique: i-1uGEQ4O4aNz-wORgcE0A-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2E911005504; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 15:04:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from horse.redhat.com (ovpn-116-45.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.116.45]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8582E5D9C0; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 15:04:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: by horse.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 10451) id 243A1220BCF; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 10:04:15 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 10:04:15 -0500 From: Vivek Goyal To: Greg Kurz Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] virtiofsd: Drop ->vu_dispatch_rwlock while waiting for thread to exit Message-ID: <20210129150415.GC3146@redhat.com> References: <20210125180115.22936-1-vgoyal@redhat.com> <20210125180115.22936-2-vgoyal@redhat.com> <20210126165600.7bbe369d@bahia.lan> <20210126183336.GB3239@redhat.com> <20210129130309.1e769bdc@bahia.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210129130309.1e769bdc@bahia.lan> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.14 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=vgoyal@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Received-SPF: pass client-ip=63.128.21.124; envelope-from=vgoyal@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -29 X-Spam_score: -3.0 X-Spam_bar: --- X-Spam_report: (-3.0 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.249, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: mst@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, dgilbert@redhat.com, virtio-fs@redhat.com, stefanha@redhat.com, marcandre.lureau@redhat.com Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 01:03:09PM +0100, Greg Kurz wrote: > On Tue, 26 Jan 2021 13:33:36 -0500 > Vivek Goyal wrote: > > [...] > > > > > > > Also, since pthread_rwlock_wrlock() can fail, I think we should > > > always check it's return value, at least with an assert() like > > > already done elsewhere. > > > > Will check return code of pthread_rwlock_wrlock() and probably use > > assert(). > > > > It turns out that pthread_rwlock_rdlock() and pthread_rwlock_unlock() can > also fail for various reasons that would likely indicate a programming > error, but their return values are never checked anywhere. > > I have a patch to address this globally in this file. Should I post it > now or you prefer this series goes first ? Please go ahead and post your patch. Your patch can go first and I can rebase my patches on top of yours. Vivek