On 2020-04-29 00:46, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> The last reference for the request_queue must not be called from atomic
> conext. *When* the last reference to the request_queue reaches 0 varies,
^^^^^^
context?
> and so let's take the opportunity to document when that is expected to
> happen and also document the context of the related calls as best as possible
> so we can avoid future issues, and with the hopes that the synchronous
> request_queue removal sticks.
>
> We revert back to synchronous request_queue removal because asynchronous
> removal creates a regression with expected userspace interaction with
> several drivers. An example is when removing the loopback driver, one
> uses ioctls from userspace to do so, but upon return and if successful,
> one expects the device to be removed. Likewise if one races to add another
> device the new one may not be added as it is still being removed. This was
> expected behaviour before and it now fails as the device is still present
^^^^^^^^^
behavior?
> +/**
> + * blk_put_queue - decrement the request_queue refcount
> + * @q: the request_queue structure to decrement the refcount for
> + *
> + * Decrements the refcount to the request_queue kobject. When this reaches 0
^^
of?
> +/**
> + * blk_get_queue - increment the request_queue refcount
> + * @q: the request_queue structure to incremenet the refcount for
^^^^^^^^^^
increment?
> + *
> + * Increment the refcount to the request_queue kobject.
^^
of?
> /**
> - * __blk_release_queue - release a request queue
> - * @work: pointer to the release_work member of the request queue to be released
> + * blk_release_queue - releases all allocated resources of the request_queue
> + * @kobj: pointer to a kobject, who's container is a request_queue
^^^^^
whose?
> +/**
> + * disk_release - releases all allocated resources of the gendisk
> + * @dev: the device representing this disk
> + *
> + * This function releases all allocated resources of the gendisk.
> + *
> + * The struct gendisk refcounted is incremeneted with get_gendisk() or
^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^
refcount? incremented?
Please fix the spelling errors. Otherwise this patch looks good to me.
Thanks,
Bart.
