Hi Mike,
Some small comments below.
For others,
Acked-by: Kiyoshi Ueda <k-ueda@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On 05/25/2010 11:43 PM +0900, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> @@ -1176,6 +1176,21 @@ static int table_load(struct dm_ioctl *p
> goto out;
> }
>
> + /* Protect md->type against concurrent table loads. */
> + dm_lock_md_type(md);
> + if (dm_get_md_type(md) == DM_TYPE_NONE) {
> + /* initial table load, set md's type based on table's type */
> + dm_set_md_type(md, t);
dm_set_md_type(md, dm_table_get_type(t));
Although I don't impose this interface, I feel it is straightforward
for this function. Then, dm_set_md_type() just set the type in md->type;
void dm_set_md_type(struct mapped_device *md, unsigned type)
{
md->type = type;
}
If you take the current interface, I feel it's not normal coding style;
> +void dm_set_md_type(struct mapped_device *md, struct dm_table* t)
Should be "dm_table *t" instead of "dm_table* t".
> @@ -66,6 +66,11 @@ int dm_table_alloc_md_mempools(struct dm
> void dm_table_free_md_mempools(struct dm_table *t);
> struct dm_md_mempools *dm_table_get_md_mempools(struct dm_table *t);
>
> +void dm_lock_md_type(struct mapped_device *md);
> +void dm_unlock_md_type(struct mapped_device *md);
> +void dm_set_md_type(struct mapped_device *md, struct dm_table* t);
The same coding style here.
Thanks,
Kiyoshi Ueda
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
