[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2038060.1639770326@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2021 19:45:26 +0000
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, linux-cachefs@...hat.com,
Trond Myklebust <trondmy@...merspace.com>,
Anna Schumaker <anna.schumaker@...app.com>,
Steve French <sfrench@...ba.org>,
Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@...ewreck.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Omar Sandoval <osandov@...ndov.com>,
JeffleXu <jefflexu@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org, ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org,
v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 17/68] fscache: Implement simple cookie state machine
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org> wrote:
> > + case FSCACHE_COOKIE_STATE_RELINQUISHING:
> > + case FSCACHE_COOKIE_STATE_WITHDRAWING:
> > + if (cookie->cache_priv) {
> > + spin_unlock(&cookie->lock);
> > + cookie->volume->cache->ops->withdraw_cookie(cookie);
> > + spin_lock(&cookie->lock);
> > + }
> > +
> > + switch (state) {
> > + case FSCACHE_COOKIE_STATE_RELINQUISHING:
> > + fscache_see_cookie(cookie, fscache_cookie_see_relinquish);
> > + fscache_unhash_cookie(cookie);
> > + __fscache_set_cookie_state(cookie,
> > + FSCACHE_COOKIE_STATE_DROPPED);
> > + wake = true;
> > + goto out;
> > + case FSCACHE_COOKIE_STATE_WITHDRAWING:
> > + fscache_see_cookie(cookie, fscache_cookie_see_withdraw);
> > + break;
> > + default:
> > + BUG();
> > + }
> > +
>
> Ugh, the nested switch here is a bit hard to follow. It makes it seem
> like the state could change due to the withdraw_cookie and you're
> checking it again, but it doesn't do that.
>
> This would be clearer if you just duplicated the withdraw_cookie stanza
> for both states and moved the stuff below here to a helper or to a new
> goto block.
There are actually three states, but one's added in a later patch. It
probably does make sense to split the RELINQ state from the other two.
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists