using rwsem lock as inode_lock to avoid deadlock

[Donny9]

Summary

1. using rwsem lock as inode_lock to avoid deadlock deadlock examples: When executing df -h on Core A to view mount information, this process will traverse inode nodes, thereby holding the inode_lock. Since the inode type of the mount point may be rpmsgfs, it will fetch staffs information from another Core B. Meanwhile, rcS on Core B needs to obtain file information from Core A, which will be achieved by fetching stat information through rpmsgfs. When this message arrives at Core A, a deadlock can occur between Core A's rptun ap and nsh task. However, both of these places involve read operations only, thus a reader-writer lock can be utilized to prevent such a deadlock.
2. simply inode_lock code, remove return value check
3. support recursive write for same process in sem_rw lock

Impact

Bug fix

Testing

Vela

[nuttxpr]

[Experimental Bot, please feedback here]

Let's analyze if this Pull Request (PR) description fulfills the NuttX requirements:

Strengths:

• Addresses a Deadlock: The PR tackles a critical issue—a deadlock scenario. This is clearly a significant bug fix, directly enhancing the stability of NuttX.
• Provides a Root Cause Explanation: The description explains the deadlock's origin, involving interactions between inode traversal, rpmsgfs, and Core A/B communication. This clarity is valuable for reviewers.
• Solution Rationale: Justifies the use of a reader-writer (rwsem) lock as a solution. It correctly points out that the deadlock arises from concurrent read operations, making rwsem a suitable mitigation.
• Mentions Additional Changes: Briefly notes code simplification (removing return value checks) and recursive write support. While needing more detail, it shows awareness of broader impacts.

Weaknesses:

• Impact Section Lacking: The "Impact" section is overly brief. It correctly identifies the change as a bug fix but needs to elaborate on the potential ramifications as the PR description template requests.
• Testing Details Insufficient: "Testing: Vela" is insufficient. The requirements demand:
  • Specifics about the testing environment: Which build hosts (OS, CPU, compiler) and targets (architecture, board, configuration) were used?
  • Testing logs: Provide "before" and "after" logs to demonstrate the deadlock's presence initially and its resolution after the change.
• Code Simplification and Recursion Under-explained: The description mentions simplifying inode_lock code and adding recursive write support but lacks detail. These changes deserve elaboration:
  • Code Simplification: What specific code was simplified? Why was the return value check unnecessary?
  • Recursive Writes: Why was this support added? Does it introduce any potential risks?

Verdict & Recommendations:

This PR description is a good starting point but does not fully meet NuttX requirements.

Here's how to improve it:

1. Expand the Impact Section: Address all the points outlined in the template, even if the answer is "NO" (with a brief explanation). For example, "Impact on build (will build process change)? NO – The changes are localized to locking mechanisms and do not affect the build process."
2. Provide Thorough Testing Information:
   • List all build host and target environments used for validation.
   • Include relevant "before" and "after" testing logs. These logs are crucial for demonstrating the deadlock and its successful resolution.
3. Explain Code Simplification: Briefly describe the removed code and why its return value check was redundant.
4. Justify Recursive Write Support: Explain the rationale behind adding this feature and address any potential downsides or complexities it might introduce.

By addressing these points, you'll create a more robust and informative PR description, increasing the likelihood of a smoother review and acceptance.