Hi, Jan!
在 2024/01/04 19:06, Jan Kara 写道:
On Thu 21-12-23 16:56:57, Yu Kuai wrote:
From: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@xxxxxxxxxx>
Avoid to access bd_inode directly, prepare to remove bd_inode from
block_devcie.
Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/block/xen-blkback/xenbus.c | 3 +--
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/block/xen-blkback/xenbus.c b/drivers/block/xen-blkback/xenbus.c
index e34219ea2b05..e645afa4af57 100644
--- a/drivers/block/xen-blkback/xenbus.c
+++ b/drivers/block/xen-blkback/xenbus.c
@@ -104,8 +104,7 @@ static void xen_update_blkif_status(struct xen_blkif *blkif)
xenbus_dev_error(blkif->be->dev, err, "block flush");
return;
}
- invalidate_inode_pages2(
- blkif->vbd.bdev_handle->bdev->bd_inode->i_mapping);
+ invalidate_bdev(blkif->vbd.bdev_handle->bdev);
This function uses invalidate_inode_pages2() while invalidate_bdev() ends
up using mapping_try_invalidate() and there are subtle behavioral
differences between these two (for example invalidate_inode_pages2() tries
to clean dirty pages using the ->launder_folio method). So I think you'll
need helper like invalidate_bdev2() for this.
Thanks for reviewing this patch, I know the differenct between then,
what I don't understand is that why using invalidate_inode_pages2()
here. sync_blockdev() is just called and 0 is returned, I think in this
case it's safe to call invalidate_bdev() directly, or am I missing
other things?
Thanks,
Kuai
Honza
