On 20/09/25 12:44PM, Ira Weiny wrote:
>Dave Jiang wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> > @@ -998,9 +998,8 @@ static int init_labels(struct nd_mapping *nd_mapping, int num_labels)
>> >  		label_ent = kzalloc(sizeof(*label_ent), GFP_KERNEL);
>> >  		if (!label_ent)
>> >  			return -ENOMEM;
>> > -		mutex_lock(&nd_mapping->lock);
>> > +		guard(mutex)(&nd_mapping->lock);
>> >  		list_add_tail(&label_ent->list, &nd_mapping->labels);
>> > -		mutex_unlock(&nd_mapping->lock);
>>
>> I would not mix and match old and new locking flow in a function. If you are going to convert, then do the whole function. I think earlier in this function you may need a scoped_guard() call.
>>
>
>FWIW I would limit the changes to __pmem_label_update() because that is
>the function which benefits from these changes.
>
>> >  	}
>> >
>> >  	if (ndd->ns_current == -1 || ndd->ns_next == -1)
>> > @@ -1039,7 +1038,7 @@ static int del_labels(struct nd_mapping *nd_mapping, uuid_t *uuid)
>> >  	if (!preamble_next(ndd, &nsindex, &free, &nslot))
>> >  		return 0;
>> >
>> > -	mutex_lock(&nd_mapping->lock);
>> > +	guard(mutex)(&nd_mapping->lock);
>>
>> So this change now includes nd_label_write_index() in the lock context as well compare to the old code. So either you should use a scoped_guard() or create a helper function and move the block of code being locked to the helper function with guard() to avoid changing the original code flow.
>>
>
>Sure you could do this but again I don't think these updates are worth
>this amount of work right now.
>

Yes Ira,

Adding change as per Dave's suggestion would require some extra code change which may not be required here.
I will fix the locking in __pmem_label_update() only.


Regards,
Neeraj