On Fri, 2015-05-22 at 13:31 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 01:55:30AM -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > > > This update will now be racy, ditto for the read/write_bytes update > > > later. > > > > This should become an atomic_long_t increment, yes..? > > Yes.
Converted. > > > Yes, this helper is from your patch above. > > > > Considering there is a single user of it here, and complexities involved > > for a RCU conversion + bisect, is it really work adding as a separate > > patch ahead of this one..? > > The golden Linus style is to put preparatory patches first so that the > actual logic change is as small as possible. Adding helpers so that > low level accesses that will e changed soon is a very typical case for that. > That would be applicable here, if the patch in question had anything to do with the actual RCU conversion itself. Since it doesn't, I'll keep it as a separate patch after the RCU specific changes, along with the other improvements. > > > > + kref_put(&orig->pr_kref, target_pr_kref_release); > > > > + wait_for_completion(&orig->pr_comp); > > > > > > > > > > > + kref_put(&orig->pr_kref, target_pr_kref_release); > > > > /* > > > > - * Disable struct se_dev_entry LUN ACL mapping > > > > + * Before fireing off RCU callback, wait for any in process > > > > SPEC_I_PT=1 > > > > + * or REGISTER_AND_MOVE PR operation to complete. > > > > */ > > > > + wait_for_completion(&orig->pr_comp); > > > > + kfree_rcu(orig, rcu_head); > > > > > > The release callback should just call kfree_rcu, no need to wait for the > > > release in the caller. > > > > > > > Why doesn't se_dev_entry release this need to wait for the special case > > references to drop..? > > Why would it? It originally had to wait in order for the se_dev_entry consumers to drop, before it could be reused in se_node_acl->device_list[].. > There is no access to the structure at this point, so there > is no point to keep it around localy. If there were other references to > it they by defintion don't need it anymore by the time they drop the > reference count. Freeing a structure as soon as the refcount drops > zero is the normal style all over the place. Waiting for a reference > count only makes sense if it's a drain style operation where you don't > free the structure but you just want to wait for some class of consumers > to stop using it. .. but since it's not being reused anymore, doing a kfree_rcu() from the final kref_put() should be fine. Converting now. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
