[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0gO49=pXGEdi42Hka=Rf=SqVWp-QSJf9_+bGuOgsHMFig@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 00:48:15 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, bart.vanassche@....com,
ming.lei@...hat.com, "Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Todd Brandt <todd.e.brandt@...ux.intel.com>, nborisov@...e.com,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
Oliver Neukum <ONeukum@...e.com>, oleksandr@...alenko.name,
Oleg Antonyan <oleg.b.antonyan@...il.com>,
Yu Chen <yu.chen.surf@...il.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/11] fs: add iterate_supers_excl() and iterate_supers_reverse_excl()
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:23 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@...nel.org> wrote:
> There are use cases where we wish to traverse the superblock list
> but also capture errors, and in which case we want to avoid having
> our callers issue a lock themselves since we can do the locking for
> the callers. Provide a iterate_supers_excl() which calls a function
> with the write lock held. If an error occurs we capture it and
> propagate it.
>
> Likewise there are use cases where we wish to traverse the superblock
> list but in reverse order. The new iterate_supers_reverse_excl() helpers
> does this but also also captures any errors encountered.
>
> Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@...nel.org>
> ---
> fs/super.c | 91 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> include/linux/fs.h | 2 ++
> 2 files changed, 93 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/super.c b/fs/super.c
> index a63513d187e8..885711c1d35b 100644
> --- a/fs/super.c
> +++ b/fs/super.c
> @@ -605,6 +605,97 @@ void iterate_supers(void (*f)(struct super_block *, void *), void *arg)
> spin_unlock(&sb_lock);
> }
>
> +/**
> + * iterate_supers_excl - exclusively call func for all active superblocks
> + * @f: function to call
> + * @arg: argument to pass to it
> + *
> + * Scans the superblock list and calls given function, passing it
> + * locked superblock and given argument. Returns 0 unless an error
> + * occurred on calling the function on any superblock.
> + */
> +int iterate_supers_excl(int (*f)(struct super_block *, void *), void *arg)
> +{
> + struct super_block *sb, *p = NULL;
> + int error = 0;
> +
> + spin_lock(&sb_lock);
> + list_for_each_entry(sb, &super_blocks, s_list) {
> + if (hlist_unhashed(&sb->s_instances))
> + continue;
> + sb->s_count++;
> + spin_unlock(&sb_lock);
Can anything bad happen if the list is modified at this point by a
concurrent thread?
> +
> + down_write(&sb->s_umount);
> + if (sb->s_root && (sb->s_flags & SB_BORN)) {
> + error = f(sb, arg);
> + if (error) {
> + up_write(&sb->s_umount);
> + spin_lock(&sb_lock);
> + __put_super(sb);
> + break;
> + }
> + }
> + up_write(&sb->s_umount);
> +
> + spin_lock(&sb_lock);
> + if (p)
> + __put_super(p);
> + p = sb;
> + }
> + if (p)
> + __put_super(p);
> + spin_unlock(&sb_lock);
> +
> + return error;
> +}
> +
Powered by blists - more mailing lists