On 6/16/22 16:18, Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito wrote:
With the*nop* job_lock/unlock placed, rename the static
functions that are always under job_mutex, adding "_locked" suffix.
List of functions that get this suffix:
job_txn_ref job_txn_del_job
job_txn_apply job_state_transition
job_should_pause job_event_cancelled
job_event_completed job_event_pending
job_event_ready job_event_idle
job_do_yield job_timer_not_pending
job_do_dismiss job_conclude
job_update_rc job_commit
job_abort job_clean
job_finalize_single job_cancel_async
job_completed_txn_abort job_prepare
job_needs_finalize job_do_finalize
job_transition_to_pending job_completed_txn_success
job_completed job_cancel_err
job_force_cancel_err
Note that "locked" refers to the*nop* job_lock/unlock, and not
real_job_lock/unlock.
No functional change intended.
Signed-off-by: Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito<eespo...@redhat.com>
Hmm. Maybe it was already discussed.. But for me it seems, that it would be
simpler to review previous patches, that fix job_ API users to use locking
properly, if this renaming go earlier.
Anyway, in this series, we can't update everything at once. So patch to patch,
we make the code more and more correct. (yes I remember that lock() is a noop,
but I should review thinking that it real, otherwise, how to review?)
So, I'm saying about formal correctness of using lock() unlock() function in
connection with introduced _locked prifixes and in connection with how it
should finally work.
You do:
05. introduce some _locked functions, that just duplicates, and
job_pause_point_locked() is formally inconsistent, as I said.
06. Update a lot of places, to give them their final form (but not final, as
some functions will be renamed to _locked, some not, hard to imagine)
07,08,09. Update some more, and even more places. very hard to track formal
correctness of using locks
10-...: rename APIs.
What do you think about the following:
1. Introduce noop lock, and some internal _locked() versions, and keep formal
consistency inside job.c, considering all public interfaces as unlocked:
at this point:
- everything correct inside job.c
- no public interfaces with _locked prefix
- all public interfaces take mutex internally
- no external user take mutex by hand
We can rename all internal static functions at this step too.
2. Introduce some public _locked APIs, that we'll use in next patches
3. Now start fixing external users in several patches:
- protect by mutex direct use of job fields
- make wider locks and move to _locked APIs inside them where needed
In this scenario, every updated unit becomes formally correct after update, and
after all steps everything is formally correct, and we can move to turning-on
the mutex.
--
Best regards,
Vladimir
