Re: [PATCH 01/30] block: also call ->open for incremental partition opens

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

 



On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 03:44:57AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> That got me curious about the ->bd_openers - do we need it atomic?
> Most of the users (and all places that do modifications) are
> under ->open_mutex; the only exceptions are
> 	* early sync logics in blkdev_put(); it's explicitly racy -
> see the comment there.
> 	* callers of disk_openers() in loop and nbd (the ones in
> zram are under ->open_mutex).  There's driver-private exclusion
> around those, but in any case - READ_ONCE() is no worse than
> atomic_read() in those cases.
> 
> Is there something subtle I'm missing here?

No.  When I had to add unlocked readers I did the READ_ONCE initially,
but reviewers though the atomic_t would be better.  I didn't really feel
like arguing so went with this version.



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [NTFS 3]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [NTFS 3]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux