Differential D21628 Diff 62069 sys/kern/kern_rangelock.c

Changeset View

Standalone View

sys/kern/kern_rangelock.c

	Show First 20 Lines • Show All 293 Lines • ▼ Show 20 Lines

	void *			void *
	rangelock_trywlock(struct rangelock *lock, off_t start, off_t end,			rangelock_trywlock(struct rangelock *lock, off_t start, off_t end,
	struct mtx *ilk)			struct mtx *ilk)
	{			{

	return (rangelock_enqueue(lock, start, end, RL_LOCK_WRITE, ilk, true));			return (rangelock_enqueue(lock, start, end, RL_LOCK_WRITE, ilk, true));
	}			}

				#ifdef INVARIANT_SUPPORT
				void
				_rangelock_cookie_assert(void cookie, int what, const char file, int line)
				{
				struct rl_q_entry *entry;
				int flags;

				MPASS(cookie != NULL);
				entry = cookie;
				flags = entry->rl_q_flags;
				switch (what) {
				case RCA_LOCKED:
				if ((flags & RL_LOCK_GRANTED) == 0)
				panic("rangelock not held @ %s:%d\n", file, line);
				kibUnsubmitted Done Inline Actions I would suggest to use KASSERT() instead of direct panic(9) call. kib: I would suggest to use KASSERT() instead of direct panic(9) call.
				kevansAuthorUnsubmitted Done Inline Actions Hmm... this makes rangelock_cookie_assert useless if kernel is compiled with INVARIANT_SUPPORT but not INVARIANTS and one still wants to do rangelock cookie assertions in a module. Is this intended/desired? kevans: Hmm... this makes rangelock_cookie_assert useless if kernel is compiled with INVARIANT_SUPPORT…
				kibUnsubmitted Done Inline Actions I am not sure that we need support for rangelocking asserts without INVARIANTs, but I understand your point. In any case I do not insist on this. kib: I am not sure that we need support for rangelocking asserts without INVARIANTs, but I…
				break;
				case RCA_RLOCKED:
				if ((flags & (RL_LOCK_GRANTED \| RL_LOCK_READ)) !=
				(RL_LOCK_GRANTED \| RL_LOCK_READ))
				panic("rangelock not rlocked @ %s:%d\n", file, line);
				break;
				case RCA_WLOCKED:
				if ((flags & (RL_LOCK_GRANTED \| RL_LOCK_WRITE)) !=
				(RL_LOCK_GRANTED \| RL_LOCK_WRITE))
				panic("rangelock not wlocked @ %s:%d\n", file, line);
				break;
				default:
				panic("Unknown rangelock assertion: %d @ %s:%d", what, file,
				kibUnsubmitted Done Inline Actions Why rl_q_flags instead of flags ? Also I do not think that RCA_UNLOCKED assert could be made safe. kib: Why rl_q_flags instead of flags ? Also I do not think that RCA_UNLOCKED assert could be made…
				kevansAuthorUnsubmitted Done Inline Actions Ah, missed converting that one. True- I'll drop RCA_UNLOCKED. kevans: Ah, missed converting that one. True- I'll drop RCA_UNLOCKED.
				line);
				}
				}
				#endif /* INVARIANT_SUPPORT */