On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 05:43:05AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> mount_writer: write_seqlock; that's an equivalent of {un,}lock_mount_hash()
> mount_locked_reader: read_seqlock_excl; these tend to be open-coded.
Do we really need the "locked" midfix in there? Doesn't seem to buy any
clarity. I'd drop it so the naming is nicely consistent.
>
> No bulk conversions, please - if nothing else, quite a few places take
> use mount_writer form when mount_locked_reader is sufficent. It needs
> to be dealt with carefully.
>
> Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/mount.h | 5 +++++
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/mount.h b/fs/mount.h
> index 97737051a8b9..ed8c83ba836a 100644
> --- a/fs/mount.h
> +++ b/fs/mount.h
> @@ -154,6 +154,11 @@ static inline void get_mnt_ns(struct mnt_namespace *ns)
>
> extern seqlock_t mount_lock;
>
> +DEFINE_LOCK_GUARD_0(mount_writer, write_seqlock(&mount_lock),
> + write_sequnlock(&mount_lock))
> +DEFINE_LOCK_GUARD_0(mount_locked_reader, read_seqlock_excl(&mount_lock),
> + read_sequnlock_excl(&mount_lock))
> +
> struct proc_mounts {
> struct mnt_namespace *ns;
> struct path root;
> --
> 2.47.2
>
