From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2018 19:53:52 -0700
From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
        bart.vanassche@wdc.com, ming.lei@redhat.com, tytso@mit.edu,
        darrick.wong@oracle.com, jikos@kernel.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net,
        pavel@ucw.cz, len.brown@intel.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com, jgross@suse.com,
        todd.e.brandt@linux.intel.com, nborisov@suse.com,
        martin.petersen@oracle.com, ONeukum@suse.com,
        oleksandr@natalenko.name, oleg.b.antonyan@gmail.com,
        yu.chen.surf@gmail.com, dan.j.williams@intel.com,
        linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/11] fs: add frozen sb state helpers
Message-ID: <20180422025352.a5vcgdcdatjvxft2@garbanzo.do-not-panic.com>
References: <20171129232356.28296-1-mcgrof@kernel.org>
 <20171129232356.28296-4-mcgrof@kernel.org>
 <20171130171310.GG28180@quack2.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <20171130171310.GG28180@quack2.suse.cz>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 06:13:10PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Wed 29-11-17 15:23:48, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > The question of whether or not a superblock is frozen needs to be
> > augmented in the future to account for differences between a user
> > initiated freeze and a kernel initiated freeze done automatically
> > on behalf of the kernel.
> > 
> > Provide helpers so that these can be used instead so that we don't
> > have to expand checks later in these same call sites as we expand
> > the definition of a frozen superblock.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@kernel.org>
> 
> So helpers are fine but...
> 
> > +/**
> > + * sb_is_frozen_by_user - is superblock frozen by a user call
> > + * @sb: the super to check
> > + *
> > + * Returns true if the super freeze was initiated by userspace, for instance,
> > + * an ioctl call.
> > + */
> > +static inline bool sb_is_frozen_by_user(struct super_block *sb)
> > +{
> > +	return sb->s_writers.frozen == SB_FREEZE_COMPLETE;
> > +}
> 
> ... I dislike the _by_user() suffix as there may be different places that
> call freeze_super() (e.g. device mapper does this during some operations).
> Clearly we need to distinguish "by system suspend" and "the other" cases.
> So please make this clear in the naming.
> 
> In fact, what might be a cleaner solution is to introduce a 'freeze_count'
> for superblock freezing (we already do have this for block devices). Then
> you don't need to differentiate these two cases - but you'd still need to
> properly handle cleanup if freezing of all superblocks fails in the middle.
> So I'm not 100% this works out nicely in the end. But it's certainly worth
> a consideration.

Seems reasonable.

  Luis