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:   Tue, 27 Jun 2023 10:24:15 +0200
From:   Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc:     Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
        peterz@infradead.org, lujialin4@huawei.com,
        lizefan.x@bytedance.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org, mingo@redhat.com,
        ebiggers@kernel.org, oleg@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
        vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
        rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
        bristot@redhat.com, vschneid@redhat.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@android.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] kernfs: add kernfs_ops.free operation to free
 resources tied to the file
Message-ID: <20230627-kanon-hievt-bfdb583ddaa6@brauner>
References: <20230626201713.1204982-1-surenb@google.com>
 <ZJn1tQDgfmcE7mNG@slm.duckdns.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZJn1tQDgfmcE7mNG@slm.duckdns.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 10:31:49AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 01:17:12PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > diff --git a/include/linux/kernfs.h b/include/linux/kernfs.h
> > index 73f5c120def8..a7e404ff31bb 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/kernfs.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/kernfs.h
> > @@ -273,6 +273,11 @@ struct kernfs_ops {
> >  	 */
> >  	int (*open)(struct kernfs_open_file *of);
> >  	void (*release)(struct kernfs_open_file *of);
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Free resources tied to the lifecycle of the file, like a
> > +	 * waitqueue used for polling.
> > +	 */
> > +	void (*free)(struct kernfs_open_file *of);
> 
> I think this can use a bit more commenting - ie. explain that release may be
> called earlier than the actual freeing of the file and how that can lead to
> problems. Othre than that, looks fine to me.

It seems the more natural thing to do would be to introduce a ->drain()
operation and order it before ->release(), no?