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;
Organization: Red Hat UK Ltd. Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley
        Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United
        Kingdom.
        Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903
From:   David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230111052515.53941-4-zhujia.zj@bytedance.com>
References: <20230111052515.53941-4-zhujia.zj@bytedance.com> <20230111052515.53941-1-zhujia.zj@bytedance.com>
To:     Jia Zhu <zhujia.zj@bytedance.com>
Cc:     dhowells@redhat.com, linux-cachefs@redhat.com,
        linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Xin Yin <yinxin.x@bytedance.com>,
        Jingbo Xu <jefflexu@linux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 3/5] cachefiles: resend an open request if the read request's object is closed
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <132776.1680012744.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date:   Tue, 28 Mar 2023 15:12:24 +0100
Message-ID: <132777.1680012744@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Precedence: bulk

Jia Zhu <zhujia.zj@bytedance.com> wrote:

> +	struct cachefiles_object *object =
> +		((struct cachefiles_ondemand_info *)work)->object;

container_of().

> +			continue;
> +		} else if (cachefiles_ondemand_object_is_reopening(object)) {

The "else" is unnecessary.

> +static void ondemand_object_worker(struct work_struct *work)
> +{
> +	struct cachefiles_object *object =
> +		((struct cachefiles_ondemand_info *)work)->object;
> +
> +	cachefiles_ondemand_init_object(object);
> +}

I can't help but feel there's some missing exclusion/locking.  This feels like
it really ought to be driven from the fscache object state machine.