On Thu 22-09-16 13:45:28, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 11:43 +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > Use assert_spin_locked() macro instead of hand-made BUG_ON statements.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify_user.c | 3 +--
> > fs/notify/notification.c | 9 +++------
> > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >
> > Andrew, can you please add this cleanup to the fanotify patches you carry?
> > Thanks!
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify_user.c b/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify_user.c
> > index 189fab3ac4e6..7ebfca6a1427 100644
> > --- a/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify_user.c
> > +++ b/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify_user.c
> > @@ -54,8 +54,7 @@ struct kmem_cache *fanotify_perm_event_cachep __read_mostly;
> > static struct fsnotify_event *get_one_event(struct fsnotify_group *group,
> > size_t count)
> > {
> > - BUG_ON(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SMP) &&
> > - !spin_is_locked(&group->notification_lock));
> > + assert_spin_locked(&group->notification_lock);
> >
> > pr_debug("%s: group=%p count=%zd\n", __func__, group, count);
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/notify/notification.c b/fs/notify/notification.c
> > index 1a8010e7a2a0..66f85c651c52 100644
> > --- a/fs/notify/notification.c
> > +++ b/fs/notify/notification.c
> > @@ -63,8 +63,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(fsnotify_get_cookie);
> > /* return true if the notify queue is empty, false otherwise */
> > bool fsnotify_notify_queue_is_empty(struct fsnotify_group *group)
> > {
> > - BUG_ON(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SMP) &&
> > - !spin_is_locked(&group->notification_lock));
> > + assert_spin_locked(&group->notification_lock);
> > return list_empty(&group->notification_list) ? true : false;
> > }
> >
> > @@ -149,8 +148,7 @@ struct fsnotify_event *fsnotify_remove_first_event(struct fsnotify_group *group)
> > {
> > struct fsnotify_event *event;
> >
> > - BUG_ON(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SMP) &&
> > - !spin_is_locked(&group->notification_lock));
> > + assert_spin_locked(&group->notification_lock);
> >
> > pr_debug("%s: group=%p\n", __func__, group);
> >
> > @@ -172,8 +170,7 @@ struct fsnotify_event *fsnotify_remove_first_event(struct fsnotify_group *group)
> > */
> > struct fsnotify_event *fsnotify_peek_first_event(struct fsnotify_group *group)
> > {
> > - BUG_ON(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SMP) &&
> > - !spin_is_locked(&group->notification_lock));
> > + assert_spin_locked(&group->notification_lock);
> >
> > return list_first_entry(&group->notification_list,
> > struct fsnotify_event, list);
>
> Much cleaner.
>
> That said, I have a personal preference for lockdep_assert_held() in
> these situations, which not only tells you whether the lock is locked,
> but (I believe) whether it was locked by the current task as well.
Yes, it does.
> Theoretically you could have a different task take this spinlock, and
> then call into here without holding it and not get the assertion since
> it was locked at the time. Of course, that does require lockdep...
Yeah, I personally don't have a strong preference. Both have advantages and
disadvantages - as you said, lockdep_assert_held() is reliable when lockdep
is enabled but there's much less testing happening with lockdep enabled and
also lockdep changes the timing enough that some cases just need not
trigger...
> In any case, this is still an improvement:
>
> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks!
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
