Hello,
On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 03:22:47PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> +bool kernfs_has_children(struct kernfs_node *kn)
> +{
> + bool has_children = false;
> + struct kernfs_node *pos;
> +
> + /* Lockless shortcut */
> + if (RB_EMPTY_NODE(&kn->rb))
> + return false;
Hmm... shouldn't it be testing !rb_first(kn->dir.children)? The above
would test whether @kn itself is unlinked.
> +
> + /* Now check for active children */
> + mutex_lock(&kernfs_mutex);
> + pos = NULL;
> + while ((pos = kernfs_next_descendant_post(pos, kn)) && pos != kn) {
> + if (kernfs_active(pos)) {
> + has_children = true;
> + break;
> + }
> + }
> + mutex_unlock(&kernfs_mutex);
> +
> + return has_children;
The active ref is there to synchronize removal against in-flight reads
so that kernfs_remove() can wait for them to drain. On return from
kernfs_remove(), the node is guaranteed to be off the rbtree and the
above test isn't necessary. !rb_first() test should be enough
(provided that there's external synchronization, of course).
Thanks.
--
tejun
