Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] use cleanup.h in btrfs

From: Qu Wenruo

Date: Wed Nov 12 2025 - 15:55:40 EST




在 2025/11/13 05:19, Gladyshev Ilya 写道:
This series represents my experimentation with refactoring with
cleanup guards. In my opinion, RAII-style locking improves readability
in most cases and also improves code robustness for future code changes,
so I tried to refactor simple cases that really benefits from lock guards.

Although I totally agree with the guard usages, it's not yet determined we will fully embrace guard usages.


However readability is a subjective concept, so you can freely disagree
and reject any of those changes, I won't insist on any. Please note that
patches 1-3 can be useful even without lock guards.

I didn't know how to split this series, mostly because it's just a lot of
small changes... so I tried to split it by types of transformation:

And even if we're determined to go guard path, I doubt if it should be done in such a rushed way.

There are already some cases where scope based auto-cleanup conversion led to some regressions, no matter how trivial they seem.
Thankfully they are all caught early, but we have to ask one critical question:

Have you run the full fstest test cases?

If not, please run it first. Such huge change is not really that easy to review.


Although I love the new scope based auto cleanup, I still tend to be more cautious doing the conversion.

Thus my recommendation on the conversion would be:

- Up to the author/expert on the involved field
E.g. if Filipe wants to use guards for send, he is 100% fine to
send out dedicated patches to do the conversion.

This also ensures reviewablity, as such change will only involve one
functionality.

- During other refactors of the code
This is pretty much the same for any code-style fixups.
We do not accept dedicated patches just fixing up whitespace/code-
style errors.
But if one is refactoring some code, it's recommended to fix any code-
style related problems near the touched part.

So I'm afraid we're not yet at the stage to accept huge conversions yet.

Thanks,
Qu


1. Patches 1-3 include some preparation work and simple fixes I noticed.
2. Patches 4-6 gradually increase the complexity of the refactored
situations, from simple lock/unlock pairs to scoped guards.
3. Patch 7 refactors functions which control flow can really benefit from
removed cleanups on exit. E.g. we can get rid of obscure if statements
in exit paths.
4. Patch 8 is kinda an example of overdone code refactoring and I predict
that it will be dropped anyway.

There is no TODOs for this series, but it's junk enough to be marked as
RFC.

Gladyshev Ilya (8):
btrfs: remove redundant label in __del_qgroup_relation
btrfs: move kfree out of btrfs_create_qgroup's cleanup path
btrfs: simplify control flow in scrub_simple_mirror
btrfs: simplify function protections with guards
btrfs: use cleanup.h guard()s to simplify unlocks on return
btrfs: simplify cleanup via scoped_guard()
btrfs: simplify return path via cleanup.h
btrfs: simplify cleanup in btrfs_add_qgroup_relation

fs/btrfs/block-group.c | 24 ++----
fs/btrfs/compression.c | 13 ++-
fs/btrfs/discard.c | 20 ++---
fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 9 +-
fs/btrfs/extent-io-tree.c | 72 ++++++----------
fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 104 ++++++++++-------------
fs/btrfs/extent_io.c | 33 ++++----
fs/btrfs/file-item.c | 6 +-
fs/btrfs/free-space-cache.c | 87 +++++++------------
fs/btrfs/fs.c | 9 +-
fs/btrfs/inode.c | 3 +-
fs/btrfs/ordered-data.c | 67 ++++++---------
fs/btrfs/qgroup.c | 165 ++++++++++++++----------------------
fs/btrfs/raid56.c | 20 ++---
fs/btrfs/scrub.c | 19 ++---
fs/btrfs/send.c | 40 ++++-----
fs/btrfs/space-info.c | 4 +-
fs/btrfs/subpage.c | 41 +++------
fs/btrfs/tree-log.c | 28 +++---
fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 3 +-
fs/btrfs/zoned.c | 13 +--
fs/btrfs/zstd.c | 13 +--
22 files changed, 299 insertions(+), 494 deletions(-)


base-commit: 24172e0d79900908cf5ebf366600616d29c9b417