On Tue, 12 May 2009, Jun'ichi Nomura wrote:
> Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > @@ -1280,8 +1284,7 @@ static int __bind(struct mapped_device *
> > if (size != get_capacity(md->disk))
> > memset(&md->geometry, 0, sizeof(md->geometry));
> >
> > - if (md->bdev)
> > - __set_size(md, size);
> > + __set_size(md, size);
> >
> > if (!size) {
> > dm_table_destroy(t);
> > @@ -1523,11 +1526,6 @@ int dm_swap_table(struct mapped_device *
> > if (!dm_suspended(md))
> > goto out;
> >
> > - /* without bdev, the device size cannot be changed */
> > - if (!md->bdev)
> > - if (get_capacity(md->disk) != dm_table_get_size(table))
> > - goto out;
> > -
> > __unbind(md);
> > r = __bind(md, table);
>
> When the device is suspended with noflush,
> can __set_size() wait forever on i_mutex
> if somebody is waiting for I/O flushing with i_mutex held (e.g. fsync)?
>
> md->bdev was also used as a marker to tell whether the device was
> suspended with noflush.
> Sorry, the original comment in the code was perhaps not adequate.
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Jun'ichi Nomura, NEC Corporation
Hi
Thanks for reviewing it. Your concern is correct. But maybe that
mutex_lock in __set_size is not needed at all --- because no one can
change size simultaneously. What do you think?
BTW. I have found another problem --- a few places in dm don't use
i_size_read and read i_size directly, which is wrong, see the next patch.
Mikulas
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
