On 12/15/2017 11:06 PM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:


On 15.12.2017 05:47, Anand Jain wrote:
Let the list iterator iterate further and find other stale
devices and delete it. This is in preparation to add support
for user land request-able stale devices cleanup.

Signed-off-by: Anand Jain <anand.j...@oracle.com>

What is the lock protection of this function - uuid_mutex, it's not
really obvious. Perhaps adding a lockdep_assert_held for the correct
lock ? I guess David's earlier patch to document the locking in
volumes.c might shed some light on this one.

 I remembered your earlier similar comments and I thought of adding
 lockdep here, but as such I am also working on cleaning up uuid_mutext
 and device_list_mutex I would like to include such lockdep assert in
 those patches.

Thanks, Anand
---
  fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 20 +++++++++-----------
  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
index 0e89409112d5..70db6a1d5658 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
@@ -610,19 +610,20 @@ static void pending_bios_fn(struct btrfs_work *work)
static void btrfs_free_stale_device(struct btrfs_device *cur_dev)
  {
-       struct btrfs_fs_devices *fs_devs;
-       struct btrfs_device *dev;
+       struct btrfs_fs_devices *fs_devs, *tmp_fs_devs;
+       struct btrfs_device *dev, *tmp_dev;
if (!cur_dev->name)
                return;
- list_for_each_entry(fs_devs, &fs_uuids, list) {
-               int del = 1;
+       list_for_each_entry_safe(fs_devs, tmp_fs_devs, &fs_uuids, list) {
if (fs_devs->opened)
                        continue;
- list_for_each_entry(dev, &fs_devs->devices, dev_list) {
+               list_for_each_entry_safe(dev, tmp_dev,
+                                        &fs_devs->devices, dev_list) {
+                       int not_found;
if (dev == cur_dev)
                                continue;
@@ -636,14 +637,12 @@ static void btrfs_free_stale_device(struct btrfs_device 
*cur_dev)
                         * either use mapper or non mapper path throughout.
                         */
                        rcu_read_lock();
-                       del = strcmp(rcu_str_deref(dev->name),
+                       not_found = strcmp(rcu_str_deref(dev->name),
                                                rcu_str_deref(cur_dev->name));
                        rcu_read_unlock();
-                       if (!del)
-                               break;
-               }
+                       if (not_found)
+                               continue;
- if (!del) {
                        /* delete the stale device */
                        if (fs_devs->num_devices == 1) {
                                btrfs_sysfs_remove_fsid(fs_devs);
@@ -654,7 +653,6 @@ static void btrfs_free_stale_device(struct btrfs_device 
*cur_dev)
                                list_del(&dev->dev_list);
                                free_device(dev);
                        }
-                       break;
                }
        }
  }

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to