Hello, Nick.
On 05/25/2010 05:51 PM, Nick Piggin wrote:
> I don't like the subtle multi-context code in bd_claim (ie. detects where it
> has been called based on bd_claiming). It seems clearer to just require a new
> function to finish a 2-part claim.
Oh yeah, that looks much better. What was I thinking? :-)
> Also improve commentary in bd_start_claiming as to how it should
> be used.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>
but one small nit.
> +static void bd_finish_claiming(struct block_device *bdev,
> + struct block_device *whole, void *holder)
> +{
> + spin_lock(&bdev_lock);
> + BUG_ON(whole->bd_claiming != holder);
The above test is already done in __bd_abort_claiming().
> + BUG_ON(!bd_may_claim(bdev, whole, holder));
> + __bd_claim(bdev, whole, holder);
> + __bd_abort_claiming(whole, holder); /* not actually an abort */
> +}
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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
