Re: [PATCH RFC v3 for-6.8/block 02/17] xen/blkback: use bdev api in xen_update_blkif_status()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


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

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");
-	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?



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux