On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 05:46:37PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 12:51:30PM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > fs/super.c | 51 ++++++++++++++-------------------------------------
> > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/super.c b/fs/super.c
> > index aa4e5c11ee32..f3227b22879d 100644
> > --- a/fs/super.c
> > +++ b/fs/super.c
> > @@ -81,16 +81,13 @@ static inline void super_unlock_shared(struct super_block *sb)
> > super_unlock(sb, false);
> > }
> >
> > +static bool super_load_flags(const struct super_block *sb, unsigned int flags)
> > {
> > /*
> > * Pairs with smp_store_release() in super_wake() and ensures
> > + * that we see @flags after we're woken.
> > */
> > + return smp_load_acquire(&sb->s_flags) & flags;
>
> I find the name for this helper very confusing. Yes, eventually it
> is clear that the load maps to a load instruction with acquire semantics
> here, but it's a really unusual naming I think. Unfortunately I can't
> offer a better one either.
I'll just drop the load from the middle then.
>
> Otherwise this looks good except for the fact that I really hate
> code using smp_load_acquire / smp_store_release directly because of
> all the mental load it causes.
Hm, it's pretty common in our code in so many places...
