Re: [PATCH 5/9] block: introduce holder ops

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

 



On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 07:36:26AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > +	mutex_lock(&bdev->bd_holder_lock);
> > >  	bdev->bd_holder = holder;
> > > +	bdev->bd_holder_ops = hops;
> > > +	mutex_unlock(&bdev->bd_holder_lock);
> > >  	bd_clear_claiming(whole, holder);
> > >  	mutex_unlock(&bdev_lock);
> > >  }
> > 
> > I guess the holder ops may be override in case of multiple claim, can
> > this be one problem from the holder ops user viewpoint? Or
> > warn_on_once(bdev->bd_holder_ops && bdev->bd_holder_ops != hops) is needed here?
> 
> <shrug> I'd have thought bd_may_claim would suffice for detecting
> multiple claims based on its "bd_holder != NULL" test?
> 
> Though I suppose an explicit test for bd_holder_ops != NULL would
> prevent multiple claims if all the claims had NULL holders.

bd_may_claim allows re-claims as long as the same holder is set.
I think we'll want to add an extra check that the holder_ops don't
change for this case.  They aren't with the current holders, but this
is a place where a belt and suspenders might be a good idea..

> 
> --D
> 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Ming
> > 
---end quoted text---



[Index of Archives]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [IDE]     [Linux Wireless]     [Linux Kernel]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux