On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 12:28:07 -0300 Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 12:41:30AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote: > > > From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2022 12:07 AM > > > > > > Make it clear that this is the body of the ioctl - keep the mutex outside > > > the function since this function doesn't have and wouldn't benefit from > > > error unwind. > > > > but doing so make unset_container() unpair with set_container() and > > be the only one doing additional things in main ioctl body. > > > > I'd prefer to moving mutex inside unset_container() for better readability. > > Yes, I tried both ways and ended up here since adding the goto unwind > was kind of ungainly for this function. Don't mind either way > > The functions are not intended as strict pairs, they are ioctl > dispatch functions. The lockdep annotation seems sufficient, but what about simply prefixing the unset ioctl function with underscores to reinforce the locking requirement, as done by the called function __vfio_group_unset_container()? Thanks, Alex
