Re: [PATCH v6 2/7] kernfs: add a revision to identify directory node changes

[Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>]

On Fri, 2021-06-11 at 14:49 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 at 10:50, Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net> wrote:
> > 
> > Add a revision counter to kernfs directory nodes so it can be used
> > to detect if a directory node has changed during negative dentry
> > revalidation.
> > 
> > There's an assumption that sizeof(unsigned long) <= sizeof(pointer)
> > on all architectures and as far as I know that assumption holds.
> > 
> > So adding a revision counter to the struct kernfs_elem_dir variant
> > of
> > the kernfs_node type union won't increase the size of the
> > kernfs_node
> > struct. This is because struct kernfs_elem_dir is at least
> > sizeof(pointer) smaller than the largest union variant. It's
> > tempting
> > to make the revision counter a u64 but that would increase the size
> > of
> > kernfs_node on archs where sizeof(pointer) is smaller than the
> > revision
> > counter.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>
> > ---
> >  fs/kernfs/dir.c             |    2 ++
> >  fs/kernfs/kernfs-internal.h |   23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  include/linux/kernfs.h      |    5 +++++
> >  3 files changed, 30 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/kernfs/dir.c b/fs/kernfs/dir.c
> > index 33166ec90a112..b3d1bc0f317d0 100644
> > --- a/fs/kernfs/dir.c
> > +++ b/fs/kernfs/dir.c
> > @@ -372,6 +372,7 @@ static int kernfs_link_sibling(struct
> > kernfs_node *kn)
> >         /* successfully added, account subdir number */
> >         if (kernfs_type(kn) == KERNFS_DIR)
> >                 kn->parent->dir.subdirs++;
> > +       kernfs_inc_rev(kn->parent);
> > 
> >         return 0;
> >  }
> > @@ -394,6 +395,7 @@ static bool kernfs_unlink_sibling(struct
> > kernfs_node *kn)
> > 
> >         if (kernfs_type(kn) == KERNFS_DIR)
> >                 kn->parent->dir.subdirs--;
> > +       kernfs_inc_rev(kn->parent);
> > 
> >         rb_erase(&kn->rb, &kn->parent->dir.children);
> >         RB_CLEAR_NODE(&kn->rb);
> > diff --git a/fs/kernfs/kernfs-internal.h b/fs/kernfs/kernfs-
> > internal.h
> > index ccc3b44f6306f..b4e7579e04799 100644
> > --- a/fs/kernfs/kernfs-internal.h
> > +++ b/fs/kernfs/kernfs-internal.h
> > @@ -81,6 +81,29 @@ static inline struct kernfs_node
> > *kernfs_dentry_node(struct dentry *dentry)
> >         return d_inode(dentry)->i_private;
> >  }
> > 
> > +static inline void kernfs_set_rev(struct kernfs_node *kn,
> > +                                 struct dentry *dentry)
> > +{
> > +       if (kernfs_type(kn) == KERNFS_DIR)
> > +               dentry->d_time = kn->dir.rev;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline void kernfs_inc_rev(struct kernfs_node *kn)
> > +{
> > +       if (kernfs_type(kn) == KERNFS_DIR)
> > +               kn->dir.rev++;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline bool kernfs_dir_changed(struct kernfs_node *kn,
> > +                                     struct dentry *dentry)
> > +{
> > +       if (kernfs_type(kn) == KERNFS_DIR) {
> 
> Aren't these always be called on a KERNFS_DIR node?

Yes they are.

> 
> You could just reduce that to a WARN_ON, or remove the conditions
> altogether then.

I was tempted to not use the check, a WARN_ON sounds better than
removing the check, I'll do that in a v7.

Thanks
Ian