On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 07:36:26AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > + mutex_lock(&bdev->bd_holder_lock); > > > bdev->bd_holder = holder; > > > + bdev->bd_holder_ops = hops; > > > + mutex_unlock(&bdev->bd_holder_lock); > > > bd_clear_claiming(whole, holder); > > > mutex_unlock(&bdev_lock); > > > } > > > > I guess the holder ops may be override in case of multiple claim, can > > this be one problem from the holder ops user viewpoint? Or > > warn_on_once(bdev->bd_holder_ops && bdev->bd_holder_ops != hops) is needed here? > > <shrug> I'd have thought bd_may_claim would suffice for detecting > multiple claims based on its "bd_holder != NULL" test? > > Though I suppose an explicit test for bd_holder_ops != NULL would > prevent multiple claims if all the claims had NULL holders. bd_may_claim allows re-claims as long as the same holder is set. I think we'll want to add an extra check that the holder_ops don't change for this case. They aren't with the current holders, but this is a place where a belt and suspenders might be a good idea.. > > --D > > > > > Thanks, > > Ming > > ---end quoted text---
