On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 07:06:14AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 01:39:33PM -0400, cel@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > - if (test_bit(NFS_DEVICEID_UNAVAILABLE, &node->flags) == 0)
> > + if (test_bit(NFS_DEVICEID_UNAVAILABLE, &node->flags) == 0) {
>
> It might be worth to invert this and keep the unavailable handling in
> the branch as that's the exceptional case. That code is also woefully
> under-documented and could have really used a comment.
>
> > + struct pnfs_block_dev *d =
> > + container_of(node, struct pnfs_block_dev, node);
> > + if (d->pr_reg)
> > + if (d->pr_reg(d) < 0)
> > + goto out_put;
>
> Empty line after variable declarations. Also is there anything that
> synchronizes the lookups here so that we don't do multiple registrations
> in parallel?
Is there something (more than d->pr_registered) that prevents that
today?
> > +
> > + if (d->pr_registered)
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + error = ops->pr_register(bdev, 0, d->pr_key, true);
> > + if (error) {
> > + trace_bl_pr_key_reg_err(bdev->bd_disk->disk_name, d->pr_key, error);
> > + return -error;
>
> ->pr_register returns either negative errnos or positive PR_STS_* values,
> simply inverting the error here isn't doing the right thing.
I don't see pr_register() returning a negative errno, but I will
remove the "-" and document the expected return values.
--
Chuck Lever
