Hi Miklos, Thanks for your response and apologies for my delayed reply. Do I understand correctly that to cover non-block devices I would need to add the same check to test_keyed_super and to test_single_super? Am I missing any other place? --Daniil On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 7:51 PM Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 at 03:11, Daniil Lunev <dlunev@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > From: Daniil Lunev <dlunev@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > The function is to be called from filesystem-specific code to mark a > > superblock to be ignored by superblock test and thus never re-used. The > > function also unregisters bdi if the bdi is per-superblock to avoid > > collision if a new superblock is created to represent the filesystem. > > generic_shutdown_super() skips unregistering bdi for a retired > > superlock as it assumes retire function has already done it. > > > > Signed-off-by: Daniil Lunev <dlunev@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Daniil Lunev <dlunev@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > > > Changes in v4: > > - Simplify condition according to Christoph Hellwig's comments. > > > > Changes in v3: > > - Back to state tracking from v1 > > - Use s_iflag to mark superblocked ignored > > - Only unregister private bdi in retire, without freeing > > > > Changes in v2: > > - Remove super from list of superblocks instead of using a flag > > > > fs/super.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > > include/linux/fs.h | 2 ++ > > 2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/super.c b/fs/super.c > > index f1d4a193602d6..3fb9fc8d61160 100644 > > --- a/fs/super.c > > +++ b/fs/super.c > > @@ -422,6 +422,30 @@ bool trylock_super(struct super_block *sb) > > return false; > > } > > > > +/** > > + * retire_super - prevernts superblock from being reused > > s/prevernts/prevents/ > > > + * @sb: superblock to retire > > + * > > + * The function marks superblock to be ignored in superblock test, which > > + * prevents it from being reused for any new mounts. > > This works for block supers and nothing else, at least as this patch > stands. That might be okay, but should at least be documented. > > Thanks, > Miklos
