On Sun, Apr 07, 2024 at 10:37:08AM +0800, Yu Kuai wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 在 2024/04/07 10:22, Al Viro 写道:
> > On Sat, Apr 06, 2024 at 05:09:08PM +0800, Yu Kuai wrote:
> > > @@ -669,7 +669,7 @@ static ssize_t blkdev_write_iter(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *from)
> > > {
> > > struct file *file = iocb->ki_filp;
> > > struct block_device *bdev = I_BDEV(file->f_mapping->host);
> > > - struct inode *bd_inode = bdev->bd_inode;
> > > + struct inode *bd_inode = bdev_inode(bdev);
> >
> > What you want here is this:
> >
> > struct inode *bd_inode = file->f_mapping->host;
> > struct block_device *bdev = I_BDEV(bd_inode);
>
> Yes, this way is better, logically.
> >
> >
> > > --- a/block/ioctl.c
> > > +++ b/block/ioctl.c
> > > @@ -97,7 +97,7 @@ static int blk_ioctl_discard(struct block_device *bdev, blk_mode_t mode,
> > > {
> > > uint64_t range[2];
> > > uint64_t start, len;
> > > - struct inode *inode = bdev->bd_inode;
> > > + struct inode *inode = bdev_inode(bdev);
> > > int err;
> >
> > The uses of 'inode' in this function are
> > filemap_invalidate_lock(inode->i_mapping);
> > and
> > filemap_invalidate_unlock(inode->i_mapping);
> >
> > IOW, you want bdev_mapping(bdev), not bdev_inode(bdev).
> >
> > > @@ -166,7 +166,7 @@ static int blk_ioctl_zeroout(struct block_device *bdev, blk_mode_t mode,
> > > {
> > > uint64_t range[2];
> > > uint64_t start, end, len;
> > > - struct inode *inode = bdev->bd_inode;
> > > + struct inode *inode = bdev_inode(bdev);
> >
> > Same story.
>
> Yes.
I've folded in those changes during applying.
