On Fri, 2023-12-15 at 09:15 -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 10:25:27PM -0700, Vishal Verma wrote:
> > > Use the guard(device) macro to lock a 'struct device', and unlock it
> > > automatically when going out of scope using Scope Based Resource
> > > Management semantics. A lot of the sysfs attribute writes in
> > > drivers/dax/bus.c benefit from a cleanup using these, so change these
> > > where applicable.
> >
> > Wait, why are you needing to call device_lock() at all here? Why is dax
> > special in needing this when no other subsystem requires it?
> >
> > >
> > > Cc: Joao Martins <joao.m.martins@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/dax/bus.c | 143 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------------
> > > 1 file changed, 59 insertions(+), 84 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/dax/bus.c b/drivers/dax/bus.c
> > > index 1ff1ab5fa105..6226de131d17 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/dax/bus.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/dax/bus.c
> > > @@ -294,13 +294,10 @@ static ssize_t available_size_show(struct device *dev,
> > > struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
> > > {
> > > struct dax_region *dax_region = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> > > - unsigned long long size;
> > >
> > > - device_lock(dev);
> > > - size = dax_region_avail_size(dax_region);
> > > - device_unlock(dev);
> > > + guard(device)(dev);
> >
> > You have a valid device here, why are you locking it? How can it go
> > away? And if it can, shouldn't you have a local lock for it, and not
> > abuse the driver core lock?
>
> Yes, this is a driver-core lock abuse written by someone who should have
> known better. And yes, a local lock to protect the dax_region resource
> tree should replace this. A new rwsem to synchronize all list walks
> seems appropriate.
I see why _a_ lock is needed both here and in size_show() - the size
calculations do a walk over discontiguous ranges, and we don't want the
device to get reconfigured in the middle of that. A different local
lock seems reasonable - however can that go as a separate cleanup that
stands on its own?
For this series, I'll add a cleanup to replace the sprintfs with
sysfs_emit().
