Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 5 Aug 2022 00:24:31 -0700
From:   Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
To:     Siddh Raman Pant <code@siddh.me>
Cc:     christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr, corbet@lwn.net, dhowells@redhat.com,
        edumazet@google.com,
        linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mchehab@kernel.org,
        rdunlap@infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] kernel/watch_queue: Remove wqueue->defunct and
 use pipe for clear check
Message-ID: <YuzFrzrTnTtUHMn/@sol.localdomain>
References: <cd2a10ffd8cb11c79754f43d0d20fd3cd4ba9b7e.1659618705.git.code@siddh.me>
 <20220804144152.468916-1-code@siddh.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220804144152.468916-1-code@siddh.me>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Aug 04, 2022 at 08:11:52PM +0530, Siddh Raman Pant wrote:
>  static inline bool lock_wqueue(struct watch_queue *wqueue)
>  {
>  	spin_lock_bh(&wqueue->lock);
> -	if (unlikely(wqueue->defunct)) {
> +	if (unlikely(!READ_ONCE(wqueue->pipe))) {
>  		spin_unlock_bh(&wqueue->lock);
>  		return false;
>  	}

Why is the READ_ONCE() needed?  Doesn't wqueue->lock protect wqueue->pipe?

> +	/* This pipe will get freed by the caller free_pipe_info().
> +	 * Removing this reference also prevents new notifications.
> +	 */

This isn't the correct block comment format; it should look like:

	/*
	 * This pipe will get freed by the caller free_pipe_info().
	 * Removing this reference also prevents new notifications.
	 */

- Eric