On Wed, Aug 02, 2023 at 09:32:19AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > + /* see get_tree_bdev why this is needed and safe */ > > Which part of get_tree_bdev? Is it this? > > /* > * s_umount nests inside open_mutex during > * __invalidate_device(). blkdev_put() acquires > * open_mutex and can't be called under s_umount. Drop > * s_umount temporarily. This is safe as we're > * holding an active reference. > */ > up_write(&s->s_umount); > blkdev_put(bdev, fc->fs_type); > down_write(&s->s_umount); Yes. With the refactoring earlier in the series get_tree_bdev should be trivial enough to not need a more specific reference. If you think there's a better way to refer to it I can update the comment, though. > > mp->m_logdev_targp = mp->m_ddev_targp; > > } > > > > - return 0; > > + error = 0; > > +out_unlock: > > + down_write(&sb->s_umount); > > Isn't down_write taking s_umount? I think the label should be > out_relock or something less misleading. Agreed. Christian, can you just change this in your branch, or should I send an incremental patch?
