From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753170Ab2FLOcY (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jun 2012 10:32:24 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:58283 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751790Ab2FLOcX (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jun 2012 10:32:23 -0400 Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 16:32:20 +0200 From: Jan Kara To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Jan Kara , Al Viro , Alex Elder , linux-fsdevel@suse.cz, LKML , xfs@oss.sgi.com, Ben Myers Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/27] xfs: Convert to new freezing code Message-ID: <20120612143220.GG6021@quack.suse.cz> References: <1339510848-16992-1-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz> <1339510848-16992-19-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz> <20120612142346.GA25132@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120612142346.GA25132@infradead.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue 12-06-12 10:23:47, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > + * We will pass freeze protection with a transaction. So tell lockdep > > + * we released it. > > + */ > > + rwsem_release(&ioend->io_inode->i_sb->s_writers.lock_map[SB_FREEZE_FS-1], > > + 1, _THIS_IP_); > > I'll need some time to get through the whole series, but repeated use > of constructs like this really screams for a helper abstracting it out > and documenting it. It's there twice and only in XFS because XFS needs to pass the freeze protection (along with a transaction) to a worker thread. I'm not against a helper but then it should probably be in a form to allow easy instrumentation of lockdep that we are passing a state of lock together with a work struct? Honza -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR