On Wed, 2010-05-05 at 18:40 +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> We cannot modify file->f_mapping->backing_dev_info, because it will corrupt
> backing device of device node inode, since file->f_mapping is equal to
> inode->i_mapping (see __dentry_open() in fs/open.c).
>
> Let's introduce separate inode for MTD device with appropriate backing
> device.
I hate the fact that we have to do this -- is it really the only option?
Is it _just_ for the backing_device_info? Can't that be done
differently?
> @@ -85,11 +88,27 @@ static int mtd_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
> goto out;
> }
>
> - if (mtd->backing_dev_info)
> - file->f_mapping->backing_dev_info = mtd->backing_dev_info;
> + if (!mtd->inode) {
> + mtd->inode = new_inode(mtd_inode_mnt->mnt_sb);
I believe that would be a race condition, if it wasn't for the BKL.
And what happens when you close the chardevice and call iput() on the
inode so it's destroyed, and then you re-open the device? You never set
mtd->inode = NULL, so won't it now try to igrab a stale pointer?
You won't have seen this in your testing unless you made it prune the
icache between the close and open calls.
--
David Woodhouse Open Source Technology Centre
David.Woodhouse@xxxxxxxxx Intel Corporation
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
