2023-09-13 12:18:14

by Christoph Hellwig

Subject: [PATCH 01/19] fs: reflow deactivate_locked_super

Return early for the case where the super block isn't cleaned up to
reduce level of indentation.

Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>
---
fs/super.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++-----------------
1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/super.c b/fs/super.c
index 2d762ce67f6e6c..127a17d958a482 100644
--- a/fs/super.c
+++ b/fs/super.c
@@ -476,27 +476,28 @@ static void kill_super_notify(struct super_block *sb)
void deactivate_locked_super(struct super_block *s)
{
struct file_system_type *fs = s->s_type;
- if (atomic_dec_and_test(&s->s_active)) {
- unregister_shrinker(&s->s_shrink);
- fs->kill_sb(s);

- kill_super_notify(s);
-
- /*
- * Since list_lru_destroy() may sleep, we cannot call it from
- * put_super(), where we hold the sb_lock. Therefore we destroy
- * the lru lists right now.
- */
- list_lru_destroy(&s->s_dentry_lru);
- list_lru_destroy(&s->s_inode_lru);
-
- put_filesystem(fs);
- put_super(s);
- } else {
+ if (!atomic_dec_and_test(&s->s_active)) {
super_unlock_excl(s);
+ return;
}
-}

+ unregister_shrinker(&s->s_shrink);
+ fs->kill_sb(s);
+
+ kill_super_notify(s);
+
+ /*
+ * Since list_lru_destroy() may sleep, we cannot call it from
+ * put_super(), where we hold the sb_lock. Therefore we destroy
+ * the lru lists right now.
+ */
+ list_lru_destroy(&s->s_dentry_lru);
+ list_lru_destroy(&s->s_inode_lru);
+
+ put_filesystem(fs);
+ put_super(s);
+}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(deactivate_locked_super);

/**
--
2.39.2

2023-09-13 16:37:13

by Christian Brauner

Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/19] fs: reflow deactivate_locked_super

On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 08:09:55AM -0300, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Return early for the case where the super block isn't cleaned up to
> reduce level of indentation.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>
> ---
> fs/super.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++-----------------
> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/super.c b/fs/super.c
> index 2d762ce67f6e6c..127a17d958a482 100644
> --- a/fs/super.c
> +++ b/fs/super.c
> @@ -476,27 +476,28 @@ static void kill_super_notify(struct super_block *sb)
> void deactivate_locked_super(struct super_block *s)

I wouldn't mind s/s/sb/ here as well. So we stop using @s in some and
@sb in other places.

Otherwise looks good to me,
Reviewed-by: Christian Brauner <[email protected]>