On Sat 29-03-25 09:42:18, Christian Brauner wrote:
> Use a common iterator for all callbacks. We could go for something even
> more elaborate (advance step-by-step similar to iov_iter) but I really
> don't think this is warranted.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx>
Looks good, one nit below. With that fixed feel free to add:
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
> +#define invalid_super list_entry_is_head
Why do you have this invalid_super define? I find it rather confusing in
the loop below and list_entry_is_head() would be much more
understandable...
Honza
> +
> +static void __iterate_supers(void (*f)(struct super_block *, void *), void *arg,
> + enum super_iter_flags_t flags)
> {
> struct super_block *sb, *p = NULL;
> + bool excl = flags & SUPER_ITER_EXCL;
>
> - spin_lock(&sb_lock);
> - list_for_each_entry(sb, &super_blocks, s_list) {
> - bool locked;
> + guard(spinlock)(&sb_lock);
>
> + for (sb = first_super(flags); !invalid_super(sb, &super_blocks, s_list);
> + sb = next_super(sb, flags)) {
> if (super_flags(sb, SB_DYING))
> continue;
> sb->s_count++;
> spin_unlock(&sb_lock);
>
> - locked = super_lock(sb, excl);
> - if (locked) {
> + if (flags & SUPER_ITER_UNLOCKED) {
> + f(sb, arg);
> + } else if (super_lock(sb, excl)) {
> f(sb, arg);
> super_unlock(sb, excl);
> }
--
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
