On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 10:50:56PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > +/*
> > + * This is an exported API for the block driver, and will not
> > + * acquire bd_mutex, leaving it up to the caller to handle
> > + * any necessary locking.
>
> Actually, the function is introduced and should be used in case
> that bd_mutex has been held already, such as clearing fd in
> loop release().
>
> > + */
> > +int __blkdev_reread_part(struct block_device *bdev)
> > {
> > struct gendisk *disk = bdev->bd_disk;
> >
lockdep_assert_held(&bdev->bd_mutex);
is an excellent means of avoiding that comment and verifying its
actually true :-)
> > if (!disk_part_scan_enabled(disk) || bdev != bdev->bd_contains)
> > return -EINVAL;
> > if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
> > return -EACCES;
> > +
> > + return rescan_partitions(disk, bdev);
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(__blkdev_reread_part);
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * This is an exported API for the block driver, and will
> > + * acquire bd_mutex. Make sure you aren't calling it with
> > + * bd_mutex already held, or we'll return -EBUSY.
>
> Strictly speaking, it should be "Make sure you aren't calling it
> with bd_mutex already held in current context".
>
> > + */
> > +int blkdev_reread_part(struct block_device *bdev)
> > +{
> > + int res;
> > +
> > if (!mutex_trylock(&bdev->bd_mutex))
> > return -EBUSY;
Is that really needed? It seems rather poor form.
> > - res = rescan_partitions(disk, bdev);
> > + res = __blkdev_reread_part(bdev);
> > mutex_unlock(&bdev->bd_mutex);
> > +
> > return res;
> > }
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(blkdev_reread_part);
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
