We recently added several functions to the file locking API. Add stubs
for those functions for when CONFIG_FILE_LOCKING is set to n.
Fixes: 403594111407 ("filelock: add some new helper functions")
Reported-by: kernel test robot <[email protected]>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/[email protected]/
Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
---
Just a small follow-on fix for CONFIG_FILE_LOCKING=n builds for the
file_lease split. Christian, it might be best to squash this into
the patch it Fixes.
That said, I'm starting to wonder if we ought to just hardcode
CONFIG_FILE_LOCKING to y. Does anyone ship kernels with it disabled? I
guess maybe people with stripped-down embedded builds might?
Another thought too: "locks_" as a prefix is awfully generic. Might it be
better to rename these new functions with a "filelock_" prefix instead?
That would better distinguish to the casual reader that this is dealing
with a file_lock object. I'm happy to respin the set if that's the
consensus.
---
include/linux/filelock.h | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)
diff --git a/include/linux/filelock.h b/include/linux/filelock.h
index 4a5ad26962c1..553d65a88048 100644
--- a/include/linux/filelock.h
+++ b/include/linux/filelock.h
@@ -263,6 +263,27 @@ static inline int fcntl_getlease(struct file *filp)
return F_UNLCK;
}
+static inline bool lock_is_unlock(struct file_lock *fl)
+{
+ return false;
+}
+
+static inline bool lock_is_read(struct file_lock *fl)
+{
+ return false;
+}
+
+static inline bool lock_is_write(struct file_lock *fl)
+{
+ return false;
+}
+
+static inline void locks_wake_up(struct file_lock *fl)
+{
+}
+
+#define for_each_file_lock(_fl, _head) while(false)
+
static inline void
locks_free_lock_context(struct inode *inode)
{
---
base-commit: 1499e59af376949b062cdc039257f811f6c1697f
change-id: 20240204-flsplit3-da666d82b7b4
Best regards,
--
Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
On Sun, Feb 04, 2024 at 07:32:55AM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> We recently added several functions to the file locking API. Add stubs
> for those functions for when CONFIG_FILE_LOCKING is set to n.
>
> Fixes: 403594111407 ("filelock: add some new helper functions")
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <[email protected]>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/[email protected]/
> Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
> ---
> Just a small follow-on fix for CONFIG_FILE_LOCKING=n builds for the
> file_lease split. Christian, it might be best to squash this into
> the patch it Fixes.
>
> That said, I'm starting to wonder if we ought to just hardcode
> CONFIG_FILE_LOCKING to y. Does anyone ship kernels with it disabled? I
> guess maybe people with stripped-down embedded builds might?
One thing you might try is building a kernel with both settings
and compare the resulting object sizes.
CONFIG_FILE_LOCKING was added during the git era, actually, so we
have some reasonable archaeology available:
commit bfcd17a6c5529bc37234cfa720a047cf9397bcfc
Author: Thomas Petazzoni <[email protected]>
AuthorDate: Wed Aug 6 15:12:22 2008 +0200
Commit: J. Bruce Fields <[email protected]>
CommitDate: Mon Sep 29 17:56:57 2008 -0400
Configure out file locking features
This patch adds the CONFIG_FILE_LOCKING option which allows to remove
support for advisory locks. With this patch enabled, the flock()
system call, the F_GETLK, F_SETLK and F_SETLKW operations of fcntl()
and NFS support are disabled. These features are not necessarly needed
on embedded systems. It allows to save ~11 Kb of kernel code and data:
text data bss dec hex filename
1125436 118764 212992 1457192 163c28 vmlinux.old
1114299 118564 212992 1445855 160fdf vmlinux
-11137 -200 0 -11337 -2C49 +/-
This patch has originally been written by Matt Mackall
<[email protected]>, and is part of the Linux Tiny project.
Embedded folks might want to keep CONFIG_FILE_LOCKING.
> Another thought too: "locks_" as a prefix is awfully generic. Might it be
> better to rename these new functions with a "filelock_" prefix instead?
> That would better distinguish to the casual reader that this is dealing
> with a file_lock object. I'm happy to respin the set if that's the
> consensus.
"posix_lock" might be even better, but no-one likes to make function
names longer.
> ---
> include/linux/filelock.h | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/filelock.h b/include/linux/filelock.h
> index 4a5ad26962c1..553d65a88048 100644
> --- a/include/linux/filelock.h
> +++ b/include/linux/filelock.h
> @@ -263,6 +263,27 @@ static inline int fcntl_getlease(struct file *filp)
> return F_UNLCK;
> }
>
> +static inline bool lock_is_unlock(struct file_lock *fl)
> +{
> + return false;
> +}
> +
> +static inline bool lock_is_read(struct file_lock *fl)
> +{
> + return false;
> +}
> +
> +static inline bool lock_is_write(struct file_lock *fl)
> +{
> + return false;
> +}
> +
> +static inline void locks_wake_up(struct file_lock *fl)
> +{
> +}
> +
> +#define for_each_file_lock(_fl, _head) while(false)
> +
> static inline void
> locks_free_lock_context(struct inode *inode)
> {
>
> ---
> base-commit: 1499e59af376949b062cdc039257f811f6c1697f
> change-id: 20240204-flsplit3-da666d82b7b4
>
> Best regards,
> --
> Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
>
>
--
Chuck Lever
> Another thought too: "locks_" as a prefix is awfully generic. Might it be
> better to rename these new functions with a "filelock_" prefix instead?
> That would better distinguish to the casual reader that this is dealing
> with a file_lock object. I'm happy to respin the set if that's the
> consensus.
If it's just a rename then just point me to a branch I can pull. I don't
think it's worth resending just because you effectively did some variant
of s/lock_*/filelock_*/g
In any case, folded this one.
On Mon, 2024-02-05 at 13:10 +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > Another thought too: "locks_" as a prefix is awfully generic. Might it be
> > better to rename these new functions with a "filelock_" prefix instead?
> > That would better distinguish to the casual reader that this is dealing
> > with a file_lock object. I'm happy to respin the set if that's the
> > consensus.
>
> If it's just a rename then just point me to a branch I can pull. I don't
> think it's worth resending just because you effectively did some variant
> of s/lock_*/filelock_*/g
>
> In any case, folded this one.
Thanks!
I haven't done a rename (yet). I was just trying to feel out whether it
was worthwhile. At this point, I'm thinking I'll just leave them as-is.,
but let me know if anyone has opinions to the contrary.
--
Jeff Layton <[email protected]>