On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 12:12 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> +/*
>> + * This is exported as API for block driver, can be called
>> + * with requiring bd_mutex or not.
>> + */
>> +int __blkdev_reread_part(struct block_device *bdev, bool lock)
>> {
>> struct gendisk *disk = bdev->bd_disk;
>> int res;
>> @@ -159,12 +163,14 @@ static int blkdev_reread_part(struct block_device *bdev)
>> return -EINVAL;
>> if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
>> return -EACCES;
>> - if (!mutex_trylock(&bdev->bd_mutex))
>> + if (lock && !mutex_trylock(&bdev->bd_mutex))
>> return -EBUSY;
>
> Please don't add funtions that do conditional locking, instead move
> all the code into blkdev_reread_part_nolock, and then wrap it:
>
> int blkdev_reread_part(struct block_device *bdev)
> {
> if (!mutex_trylock(&bdev->bd_mutex))
> return -EBUSY;
> blkdev_reread_part_nolock(bdev);
> mutex_unlock(&bdev->bd_mutex);
> }
Yes, it is more clean, but with extra acquiring lock cost for the
failure cases, especially when we replace trylock with mutex_lock().
>
> Please also add a lockdep_assert_held to blkdev_reread_part_nolock to
> ensure callers actually do hold the lock.
Good point!
Thanks,
Ming Lei
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
