On Sat, May 8, 2021 at 5:29 AM Jia He <justin.he@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> This helper is similar to d_path except for not taking seqlock/spinlock.
I see why you did it that way, but conditional locking is something we
really really try to avoid in the kernel.
It basically makes a lot of static tools unable to follow the locking
rules, and it makes it hard for people to se what's going on too.
So instead of passing a "bool need_lock" thing down, the way to do
these things is generally to extract the code inside the locked region
into a helper function of its own, and then you have
__unlocked_version(...)
{
.. do the actual work
}
locked_version(..)
{
take_lock(..)
retval = __unlocked_version(..);
release_lock(..);
return retval;
}
this prepend_path() case is a bit more complicated because there's two
layers of locking, but I think the pattern should still work fine.
In fact, I think it would clean up prepend_path() and make it more
legible to have the two layers of mount_lock / rename_lock be done in
callers with the restarting being done as a loop in the caller rather
than as "goto restart_*".
Linus
