| Message ID | 1549609355-11053-2-git-send-email-anand.jain@oracle.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Misc props.c cleanups | expand |
On 8.02.19 г. 9:02 ч., Anand Jain wrote: > We have killed volume mutex (commit: dccdb07bc996 > btrfs: kill btrfs_fs_info::volume_mutex) update comment. This a trival one > seems to have escaped. > > Signed-off-by: Anand Jain <anand.jain@oracle.com> > --- > fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c > index fe122e6099ae..8160749cd9ba 100644 > --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c > +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c > @@ -1129,7 +1129,7 @@ static struct btrfs_fs_devices *clone_fs_devices(struct btrfs_fs_devices *orig) > mutex_lock(&orig->device_list_mutex); > fs_devices->total_devices = orig->total_devices; > > - /* We have held the volume lock, it is safe to get the devices. */ > + /* We have held the device_list_mutex, it is safe to get the devices. */ I'd rather have the comment replaced with lockdep_assert_held it's a lot more eloquent. > list_for_each_entry(orig_dev, &orig->devices, dev_list) { > struct rcu_string *name; > >
On 2/8/19 3:07 PM, Nikolay Borisov wrote: > > > On 8.02.19 г. 9:02 ч., Anand Jain wrote: >> We have killed volume mutex (commit: dccdb07bc996 >> btrfs: kill btrfs_fs_info::volume_mutex) update comment. This a trival one >> seems to have escaped. >> >> Signed-off-by: Anand Jain <anand.jain@oracle.com> >> --- >> fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c >> index fe122e6099ae..8160749cd9ba 100644 >> --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c >> +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c >> @@ -1129,7 +1129,7 @@ static struct btrfs_fs_devices *clone_fs_devices(struct btrfs_fs_devices *orig) >> mutex_lock(&orig->device_list_mutex); >> fs_devices->total_devices = orig->total_devices; >> >> - /* We have held the volume lock, it is safe to get the devices. */ >> + /* We have held the device_list_mutex, it is safe to get the devices. */ > > I'd rather have the comment replaced with lockdep_assert_held it's a lot > more eloquent. I agree if we don't acquire the required lock in the same function, but here, we call the required mutex_lock(&orig->device_list_mutex); just three lines above in the same function. Where do we need the lockdep_assert_held()? -Anand >> list_for_each_entry(orig_dev, &orig->devices, dev_list) { >> struct rcu_string *name; >> >>
On 8.02.19 г. 9:16 ч., Anand Jain wrote: > > > On 2/8/19 3:07 PM, Nikolay Borisov wrote: >> >> >> On 8.02.19 г. 9:02 ч., Anand Jain wrote: >>> We have killed volume mutex (commit: dccdb07bc996 >>> btrfs: kill btrfs_fs_info::volume_mutex) update comment. This a >>> trival one >>> seems to have escaped. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Anand Jain <anand.jain@oracle.com> >>> --- >>> fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 2 +- >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c >>> index fe122e6099ae..8160749cd9ba 100644 >>> --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c >>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c >>> @@ -1129,7 +1129,7 @@ static struct btrfs_fs_devices >>> *clone_fs_devices(struct btrfs_fs_devices *orig) >>> mutex_lock(&orig->device_list_mutex); >>> fs_devices->total_devices = orig->total_devices; >>> - /* We have held the volume lock, it is safe to get the >>> devices. */ >>> + /* We have held the device_list_mutex, it is safe to get the >>> devices. */ >> >> I'd rather have the comment replaced with lockdep_assert_held it's a lot >> more eloquent. > > I agree if we don't acquire the required lock in the same function, > but here, we call the required mutex_lock(&orig->device_list_mutex); > just three lines above in the same function. > > Where do we need the lockdep_assert_held()? You are right I missed that. In that case I'd say just remove the comment it should be obvious what's happening. > > -Anand > >>> list_for_each_entry(orig_dev, &orig->devices, dev_list) { >>> struct rcu_string *name; >>> >
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c index fe122e6099ae..8160749cd9ba 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c @@ -1129,7 +1129,7 @@ static struct btrfs_fs_devices *clone_fs_devices(struct btrfs_fs_devices *orig) mutex_lock(&orig->device_list_mutex); fs_devices->total_devices = orig->total_devices; - /* We have held the volume lock, it is safe to get the devices. */ + /* We have held the device_list_mutex, it is safe to get the devices. */ list_for_each_entry(orig_dev, &orig->devices, dev_list) { struct rcu_string *name;
We have killed volume mutex (commit: dccdb07bc996 btrfs: kill btrfs_fs_info::volume_mutex) update comment. This a trival one seems to have escaped. Signed-off-by: Anand Jain <anand.jain@oracle.com> --- fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)