On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 09:55:12PM +0200, Pavel Reichl wrote: > Refactor xfs_isilocked() to use newly introduced __xfs_rwsem_islocked(). > __xfs_rwsem_islocked() is a helper function which encapsulates checking > state of rw_semaphores hold by inode. > > Signed-off-by: Pavel Reichl <preichl@xxxxxxxxxx> > Suggested-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> > Suggested-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx> > Suggested-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------- > fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h | 21 +++++++++++++------- > 2 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c > index c06129cffba9..7c1ceb4df4ec 100644 > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c > @@ -345,9 +345,43 @@ xfs_ilock_demote( > } > > #if defined(DEBUG) || defined(XFS_WARN) > -int > +static inline bool > +__xfs_rwsem_islocked( > + struct rw_semaphore *rwsem, > + int lock_flags) > +{ > + int arg; > + > + if (!debug_locks) > + return rwsem_is_locked(rwsem); > + > + if (lock_flags & (1 << XFS_SHARED_LOCK_SHIFT)) { > + /* > + * The caller could be asking if we have (shared | excl) > + * access to the lock. Ask lockdep if the rwsem is > + * locked either for read or write access. > + * > + * The caller could also be asking if we have only > + * shared access to the lock. Holding a rwsem > + * write-locked implies read access as well, so the > + * request to lockdep is the same for this case. > + */ > + arg = -1; > + } else { > + /* > + * The caller is asking if we have only exclusive access > + * to the lock. Ask lockdep if the rwsem is locked for > + * write access. > + */ > + arg = 0; > + } > + > + return lockdep_is_held_type(rwsem, arg); Why not write this as: if (lock_flags & (1 << XFS_SHARED_LOCK_SHIFT)) { ... return lockdep_is_held_type(rwsem, 1); } ... return lockdep_is_held_type(rwsem, 0); } which seems a lot easier to read compare to the strange arg variable. Otherwise this looks good to me: Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>