On Fri, 2022-09-23 at 12:21 -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 10:44:37PM -0700,
> allison.henderson@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > From: Allison Henderson <allison.henderson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Modify xfs_rename to hold all inode locks across a rename operation
> > We will need this later when we add parent pointers
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Allison Henderson <allison.henderson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> > 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
> > index 9a3174a8f895..4bfa4a1579f0 100644
> > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
> > @@ -2837,18 +2837,16 @@ xfs_rename(
> > xfs_lock_inodes(inodes, num_inodes, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL);
> >
> > /*
> > - * Join all the inodes to the transaction. From this point
> > on,
> > - * we can rely on either trans_commit or trans_cancel to
> > unlock
> > - * them.
> > + * Join all the inodes to the transaction.
> > */
> > - xfs_trans_ijoin(tp, src_dp, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL);
> > + xfs_trans_ijoin(tp, src_dp, 0);
> > if (new_parent)
> > - xfs_trans_ijoin(tp, target_dp, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL);
> > - xfs_trans_ijoin(tp, src_ip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL);
> > + xfs_trans_ijoin(tp, target_dp, 0);
> > + xfs_trans_ijoin(tp, src_ip, 0);
> > if (target_ip)
> > - xfs_trans_ijoin(tp, target_ip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL);
> > + xfs_trans_ijoin(tp, target_ip, 0);
> > if (wip)
> > - xfs_trans_ijoin(tp, wip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL);
> > + xfs_trans_ijoin(tp, wip, 0);
> >
> > /*
> > * If we are using project inheritance, we only allow
> > renames
> > @@ -2862,10 +2860,12 @@ xfs_rename(
> > }
> >
> > /* RENAME_EXCHANGE is unique from here on. */
> > - if (flags & RENAME_EXCHANGE)
> > - return xfs_cross_rename(tp, src_dp, src_name,
> > src_ip,
> > + if (flags & RENAME_EXCHANGE) {
> > + error = xfs_cross_rename(tp, src_dp, src_name,
> > src_ip,
> > target_dp, target_name,
> > target_ip,
> > spaceres);
> > + goto out_unlock;
> > + }
> >
> > /*
> > * Try to reserve quota to handle an expansion of the
> > target directory.
> > @@ -3090,12 +3090,21 @@ xfs_rename(
> > xfs_trans_log_inode(tp, target_dp, XFS_ILOG_CORE);
> >
> > error = xfs_finish_rename(tp);
> > - if (wip)
> > - xfs_irele(wip);
> > - return error;
> > +
> > + goto out_unlock;
> >
> > out_trans_cancel:
> > xfs_trans_cancel(tp);
> > +out_unlock:
> > + /* Unlock inodes in reverse order */
> > + for (i = num_inodes - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
> > + if (inodes[i])
> > + xfs_iunlock(inodes[i], XFS_ILOCK_EXCL);
> > +
> > + /* Skip duplicate inodes if src and target dps are
> > the same */
> > + if (i && (inodes[i] == inodes[i - 1]))
> > + i--;
> > + }
>
> Could you hoist this to a static inline xfs_iunlock_after_rename
> function that is adjacent to xfs_sort_for_rename, please? It's
> easier
> to verify that it does the right thing w.r.t. multiple array
> references
> pointing to the same incore inode when the two array management
> functions are right next to each other.
>
> static inline void
> xfs_iunlock_after_rename(
> struct xfs_inode **i_tab,
> int num_inodes)
> {
> for (i = num_inodes - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
> /* Skip duplicate inodes if src and target dps are
> the same */
> if (!i_tab[i] || (i > 0 && i_tab[i] == i_tab[i - 1]))
> continue;
> xfs_iunlock(i_tab[i], XFS_ILOCK_EXCL);
> }
> }
>
Sure, that looks fine. Will do. Thanks!
Allison
> With that cleaned up,
> Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> --D
>
> > out_release_wip:
> > if (wip)
> > xfs_irele(wip);
> > --
> > 2.25.1
> >
