On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 06:06:15AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 01:42:06PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 09:54:30AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > The only non-constant value read under m_sb_lock in xfs_fs_statfs is > > > sb_dblocks, and it could become stale right after dropping the lock > > > anyway. Remove the thus pointless lock section. > > > > Is there a stronger reason later for removing the critical section? > > Do we lose much by leaving the protection in place? > > It makes a completely mess of xfs_fs_statfs, and as stated in the > commit message about it's not actually useful at all. I also don't > think taking a global lock from a non-privileged operation is an > old that good idea to start with if we can avoid it. Ok, I'm convinced. But perhaps you could leave a comment that we don't care if the accesses are torn, to try to head off the inevitable kcsan/ dept/whatever patches? Reviewed-by: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> --D
