Re: [Nbd] [PATCH 1/6] block: export blkdev_reread_part()
- To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...1270...>
- Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...161...>, "nbd-general@lists.sourceforge.net" <nbd-general@lists.sourceforge.net>, linux-s390@...25..., Stefan Haberland <stefan.haberland@...1296...>, Sebastian Ott <sebott@...1294...>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...25...>, Jarod Wilson <jarod@...696...>, Fabian Frederick <fabf@...1980...>, Alexander Viro <viro@...1300...>, David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@...17...>, Tejun Heo <tj@...1285...>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...133...>
- Subject: Re: [Nbd] [PATCH 1/6] block: export blkdev_reread_part()
- From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...1301...>
- Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2015 00:40:12 +0800
- Message-id: <CACVXFVP-rokGRrMus_QXju+MVzFPTaFC45oZBe2PEBfbid8nmQ@...18...>
- In-reply-to: <20150405161241.GB16886@...1270...>
- References: <1428218688-4092-1-git-send-email-ming.lei@...1301...> <1428218688-4092-2-git-send-email-ming.lei@...1301...> <20150405161241.GB16886@...1270...>
On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 12:12 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...1270...> wrote:
>> +/*
>> + * This is exported as API for block driver, can be called
>> + * with requiring bd_mutex or not.
>> + */
>> +int __blkdev_reread_part(struct block_device *bdev, bool lock)
>> {
>> struct gendisk *disk = bdev->bd_disk;
>> int res;
>> @@ -159,12 +163,14 @@ static int blkdev_reread_part(struct block_device *bdev)
>> return -EINVAL;
>> if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
>> return -EACCES;
>> - if (!mutex_trylock(&bdev->bd_mutex))
>> + if (lock && !mutex_trylock(&bdev->bd_mutex))
>> return -EBUSY;
>
> Please don't add funtions that do conditional locking, instead move
> all the code into blkdev_reread_part_nolock, and then wrap it:
>
> int blkdev_reread_part(struct block_device *bdev)
> {
> if (!mutex_trylock(&bdev->bd_mutex))
> return -EBUSY;
> blkdev_reread_part_nolock(bdev);
> mutex_unlock(&bdev->bd_mutex);
> }
Yes, it is more clean, but with extra acquiring lock cost for the
failure cases, especially when we replace trylock with mutex_lock().
>
> Please also add a lockdep_assert_held to blkdev_reread_part_nolock to
> ensure callers actually do hold the lock.
Good point!
Thanks,
Ming Lei
Reply to: