Re: [PATCH v2 00/41] filelock: split struct file_lock into file_lock and file_lease structs

[NeilBrown]

On Fri, 26 Jan 2024, Chuck Lever wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 05:42:41AM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > Long ago, file locks used to hang off of a singly-linked list in struct
> > inode. Because of this, when leases were added, they were added to the
> > same list and so they had to be tracked using the same sort of
> > structure.
> > 
> > Several years ago, we added struct file_lock_context, which allowed us
> > to use separate lists to track different types of file locks. Given
> > that, leases no longer need to be tracked using struct file_lock.
> > 
> > That said, a lot of the underlying infrastructure _is_ the same between
> > file leases and locks, so we can't completely separate everything.
> > 
> > This patchset first splits a group of fields used by both file locks and
> > leases into a new struct file_lock_core, that is then embedded in struct
> > file_lock. Coccinelle was then used to convert a lot of the callers to
> > deal with the move, with the remaining 25% or so converted by hand.
> > 
> > It then converts several internal functions in fs/locks.c to work
> > with struct file_lock_core. Lastly, struct file_lock is split into
> > struct file_lock and file_lease, and the lease-related APIs converted to
> > take struct file_lease.
> > 
> > After the first few patches (which I left split up for easier review),
> > the set should be bisectable. I'll plan to squash the first few
> > together to make sure the resulting set is bisectable before merge.
> > 
> > Finally, I left the coccinelle scripts I used in tree. I had heard it
> > was preferable to merge those along with the patches that they
> > generate, but I wasn't sure where they go. I can either move those to a
> > more appropriate location or we can just drop that commit if it's not
> > needed.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> v2 looks nicer.
> 
> I would add a few list handling primitives, as I see enough
> instances of list_for_each_entry, list_for_each_entry_safe,
> list_first_entry, and list_first_entry_or_null on fl_core.flc_list
> to make it worth having those.
> 
> Also, there doesn't seem to be benefit for API consumers to have to
> understand the internal structure of struct file_lock/lease to reach
> into fl_core. Having accessor functions for common fields like
> fl_type and fl_flags could be cleaner.

I'm not a big fan of accessor functions.  They don't *look* like normal
field access, so a casual reader has to go find out what the function
does, just to find the it doesn't really do anything.

But neither am I a fan have requiring filesystems to use
"fl_core.flc_foo".  As you say, reaching into fl_core isn't ideal.

It would be nice if we could make fl_core and anonymous structure, but
that really requires -fplan9-extensions which Linus is on-record as not
liking.
Unless...

How horrible would it be to use

   union {
       struct file_lock_core flc_core;
       struct file_lock_core;
   };

I think that only requires -fms-extensions, which Linus was less
negative towards.  That would allow access to the members of
file_lock_core without the "flc_core." prefix, but would still allow
getting the address of 'flc_core'.
Maybe it's too ugly.

While fl_type and fl_flags are most common, fl_pid, fl_owner, fl_file
and even fl_wait are also used.  Having accessor functions for all of those
would be too much I think.

Maybe higher-level functions which meet the real need of the filesystem
might be a useful approach:

 locks_wakeup(lock)
 locks_wait_interruptible(lock, condition)
 locks_posix_init(lock, type, pid, ...) ??
 locks_is_unlock() - fl_type is compared with F_UNLCK 22 times.

While those are probably a good idea, through don't really help much
with reducing the need for accessor functions.

I don't suppose we could just leave the #defines in place?  Probably not
a good idea.

Maybe spell "fl_core" as "c"?  lk->c.flc_flags ???


And I wonder if we could have a new fl_flag for 'FOREIGN' locks rather
than encoding that flag in the sign of the pid.  That seems a bit ...
clunky?

NeilBrown