At present there are ~200 usages of device_lock() in the kernel. Some of
those usages lead to "goto unlock;" patterns which have proven to be
error prone. Define a "device" guard() definition to allow for those to
be cleaned up and prevent new ones from appearing.
Link: http://lore.kernel.org/r/657897453dda8_269bd29492@dwillia2-mobl3.amr.corp.intel.com.notmuch
Link: http://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
Cc: Vishal Verma <[email protected]>
Cc: Ira Weiny <[email protected]>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
Cc: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <[email protected]>
---
Hi Greg,
I wonder if you might include this change in v6.7-rc to ease some patch
sets alternately going through my tree and Andrew's tree. Those
discussions are linked above. Alternately I can can just take it through
my tree with your ack and the other use case can circle back to it in
the v6.9 cycle.
I considered also defining a __free() helper similar to __free(mutex),
but I think "__free(device)" would be a surprising name for something
that drops a lock. Also, I like the syntax of guard(device) over
something like guard(device_lock) since a 'struct device *' is the
argument, not a lock type, but I'm open to your or Peter's thoughts on
the naming.
include/linux/device.h | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/include/linux/device.h b/include/linux/device.h
index d7a72a8749ea..6c83294395ac 100644
--- a/include/linux/device.h
+++ b/include/linux/device.h
@@ -1007,6 +1007,8 @@ static inline void device_unlock(struct device *dev)
mutex_unlock(&dev->mutex);
}
+DEFINE_GUARD(device, struct device *, device_lock(_T), device_unlock(_T))
+
static inline void device_lock_assert(struct device *dev)
{
lockdep_assert_held(&dev->mutex);
Dan Williams wrote:
> At present there are ~200 usages of device_lock() in the kernel. Some of
> those usages lead to "goto unlock;" patterns which have proven to be
> error prone. Define a "device" guard() definition to allow for those to
> be cleaned up and prevent new ones from appearing.
>
> Link: http://lore.kernel.org/r/657897453dda8_269bd29492@dwillia2-mobl3.amr.corp.intel.com.notmuch
> Link: http://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
> Cc: Vishal Verma <[email protected]>
> Cc: Ira Weiny <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Ira Weiny <[email protected]>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <[email protected]>
> ---
> Hi Greg,
>
> I wonder if you might include this change in v6.7-rc to ease some patch
> sets alternately going through my tree and Andrew's tree. Those
> discussions are linked above. Alternately I can can just take it through
> my tree with your ack and the other use case can circle back to it in
> the v6.9 cycle.
>
> I considered also defining a __free() helper similar to __free(mutex),
> but I think "__free(device)" would be a surprising name for something
> that drops a lock. Also, I like the syntax of guard(device) over
> something like guard(device_lock) since a 'struct device *' is the
> argument, not a lock type, but I'm open to your or Peter's thoughts on
> the naming.
>
> include/linux/device.h | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/device.h b/include/linux/device.h
> index d7a72a8749ea..6c83294395ac 100644
> --- a/include/linux/device.h
> +++ b/include/linux/device.h
> @@ -1007,6 +1007,8 @@ static inline void device_unlock(struct device *dev)
> mutex_unlock(&dev->mutex);
> }
>
> +DEFINE_GUARD(device, struct device *, device_lock(_T), device_unlock(_T))
> +
> static inline void device_lock_assert(struct device *dev)
> {
> lockdep_assert_held(&dev->mutex);
>
On Wed, 2023-12-13 at 15:02 -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> At present there are ~200 usages of device_lock() in the kernel. Some of
> those usages lead to "goto unlock;" patterns which have proven to be
> error prone. Define a "device" guard() definition to allow for those to
"Define a definition" sounds a bit awkward, perhaps "Add a .."?
> be cleaned up and prevent new ones from appearing.
>
> Link: http://lore.kernel.org/r/657897453dda8_269bd29492@dwillia2-mobl3.amr.corp.intel.com.notmuch
> Link: http://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
> Cc: Vishal Verma <[email protected]>
> Cc: Ira Weiny <[email protected]>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <[email protected]>
Other than that, looks good,
Reviewed-by: Vishal Verma <[email protected]>
> ---
> Hi Greg,
>
> I wonder if you might include this change in v6.7-rc to ease some patch
> sets alternately going through my tree and Andrew's tree. Those
> discussions are linked above. Alternately I can can just take it through
> my tree with your ack and the other use case can circle back to it in
> the v6.9 cycle.
>
> I considered also defining a __free() helper similar to __free(mutex),
> but I think "__free(device)" would be a surprising name for something
> that drops a lock. Also, I like the syntax of guard(device) over
> something like guard(device_lock) since a 'struct device *' is the
> argument, not a lock type, but I'm open to your or Peter's thoughts on
> the naming.
>
> include/linux/device.h | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/device.h b/include/linux/device.h
> index d7a72a8749ea..6c83294395ac 100644
> --- a/include/linux/device.h
> +++ b/include/linux/device.h
> @@ -1007,6 +1007,8 @@ static inline void device_unlock(struct device *dev)
> mutex_unlock(&dev->mutex);
> }
>
> +DEFINE_GUARD(device, struct device *, device_lock(_T), device_unlock(_T))
> +
> static inline void device_lock_assert(struct device *dev)
> {
> lockdep_assert_held(&dev->mutex);
>
On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 03:02:35PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> At present there are ~200 usages of device_lock() in the kernel. Some of
> those usages lead to "goto unlock;" patterns which have proven to be
> error prone. Define a "device" guard() definition to allow for those to
> be cleaned up and prevent new ones from appearing.
>
> Link: http://lore.kernel.org/r/657897453dda8_269bd29492@dwillia2-mobl3.amr.corp.intel.com.notmuch
> Link: http://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
> Cc: Vishal Verma <[email protected]>
> Cc: Ira Weiny <[email protected]>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <[email protected]>
> ---
> Hi Greg,
>
> I wonder if you might include this change in v6.7-rc to ease some patch
> sets alternately going through my tree and Andrew's tree. Those
> discussions are linked above. Alternately I can can just take it through
> my tree with your ack and the other use case can circle back to it in
> the v6.9 cycle.
Sure, I'll queue it up now for 6.7-final, makes sense to have it now for
others to build off of, and for me to fix up some places in the driver
core to use it as well.
> I considered also defining a __free() helper similar to __free(mutex),
> but I think "__free(device)" would be a surprising name for something
> that drops a lock. Also, I like the syntax of guard(device) over
> something like guard(device_lock) since a 'struct device *' is the
> argument, not a lock type, but I'm open to your or Peter's thoughts on
> the naming.
guard(device); makes sense to me, as that's what you are doing here, so
I'm good with it.
thanks,
greg k-h
On 12/13/23 16:02, Dan Williams wrote:
> At present there are ~200 usages of device_lock() in the kernel. Some of
> those usages lead to "goto unlock;" patterns which have proven to be
> error prone. Define a "device" guard() definition to allow for those to
> be cleaned up and prevent new ones from appearing.
>
> Link: http://lore.kernel.org/r/657897453dda8_269bd29492@dwillia2-mobl3.amr.corp.intel.com.notmuch
> Link: http://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
> Cc: Vishal Verma <[email protected]>
> Cc: Ira Weiny <[email protected]>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Dave Jiang <[email protected]>
> ---
> Hi Greg,
>
> I wonder if you might include this change in v6.7-rc to ease some patch
> sets alternately going through my tree and Andrew's tree. Those
> discussions are linked above. Alternately I can can just take it through
> my tree with your ack and the other use case can circle back to it in
> the v6.9 cycle.
>
> I considered also defining a __free() helper similar to __free(mutex),
> but I think "__free(device)" would be a surprising name for something
> that drops a lock. Also, I like the syntax of guard(device) over
> something like guard(device_lock) since a 'struct device *' is the
> argument, not a lock type, but I'm open to your or Peter's thoughts on
> the naming.
>
> include/linux/device.h | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/device.h b/include/linux/device.h
> index d7a72a8749ea..6c83294395ac 100644
> --- a/include/linux/device.h
> +++ b/include/linux/device.h
> @@ -1007,6 +1007,8 @@ static inline void device_unlock(struct device *dev)
> mutex_unlock(&dev->mutex);
> }
>
> +DEFINE_GUARD(device, struct device *, device_lock(_T), device_unlock(_T))
> +
> static inline void device_lock_assert(struct device *dev)
> {
> lockdep_assert_held(&dev->mutex);
>
>