[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180514124230.GA654@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 05:42:30 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@...e.de>
Cc: Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>,
Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
Linux Kernel Mailinglist <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux NVMe Mailinglist <linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nvme: fix lockdep warning in
nvme_mpath_clear_current_path
> extern unsigned int nvme_io_timeout;
> #define NVME_IO_TIMEOUT (nvme_io_timeout * HZ)
> @@ -454,7 +455,9 @@ static inline void nvme_mpath_clear_current_path(struct nvme_ns *ns)
> {
> struct nvme_ns_head *head = ns->head;
>
> - if (head && ns == srcu_dereference(head->current_path, &head->srcu))
> + if (head &&
> + ns == rcu_dereference_protected(head->current_path,
> + lockdep_is_held(&ns->ctrl->subsys->lock)))
> rcu_assign_pointer(head->current_path, NULL);
> }
> struct nvme_ns *nvme_find_path(struct nvme_ns_head *head);
We don't really dereference it at all in fact, but just check the
pointers for equality. I wonder if there is a better way to do this,
as my ANA patches add a caller without the lock (and withou SRU
protection either now that I think of it) - for a pure pointer compare
we really should not need any sort of protection.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists