linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fs/ceph/io: make ceph_start_io

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <d3a588b67c3b1c52a759c59c19685ab8fcd59258.camel@ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2024 17:40:27 +0000
From: Viacheslav Dubeyko <Slava.Dubeyko@....com>
To: "ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org" <ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "max.kellermann@...os.com" <max.kellermann@...os.com>,
        Xiubo Li
	<xiubli@...hat.com>,
        "idryomov@...il.com" <idryomov@...il.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alex Markuze
	<amarkuze@...hat.com>
Subject: Re:  [PATCH] fs/ceph/io: make ceph_start_io_*() killable

On Fri, 2024-12-06 at 17:50 +0100, Max Kellermann wrote:
> This allows killing processes that wait for a lock when one process
> is
> stuck waiting for the Ceph server.  This is similar to the NFS commit
> 38a125b31504 ("fs/nfs/io: make nfs_start_io_*() killable").
> 
> Signed-off-by: Max Kellermann <max.kellermann@...os.com>
> ---
>  fs/ceph/file.c | 22 +++++++++++++---------
>  fs/ceph/io.c   | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>  fs/ceph/io.h   |  8 +++++---
>  3 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
> 
> 

<skipped>

>  
>  /**
> diff --git a/fs/ceph/io.h b/fs/ceph/io.h
> index fa594cd77348..08d58253f533 100644
> --- a/fs/ceph/io.h
> +++ b/fs/ceph/io.h
> @@ -2,11 +2,13 @@
>  #ifndef _FS_CEPH_IO_H
>  #define _FS_CEPH_IO_H
>  
> -void ceph_start_io_read(struct inode *inode);
> +#include <linux/compiler_attributes.h> // for __must_check

Do we really need this comment (for __must_check)? It looks like not
very informative. What do you think?

I am not completely sure that it really needs to request compiler to
check that return value is processed. Do we really need to enforce it?

Thanks,
Slava.

> +
> +__must_check int ceph_start_io_read(struct inode *inode);
>  void ceph_end_io_read(struct inode *inode);
> -void ceph_start_io_write(struct inode *inode);
> +__must_check int ceph_start_io_write(struct inode *inode);
>  void ceph_end_io_write(struct inode *inode);
> -void ceph_start_io_direct(struct inode *inode);
> +__must_check int ceph_start_io_direct(struct inode *inode);
>  void ceph_end_io_direct(struct inode *inode);
>  
>  #endif /* FS_CEPH_IO_H */