On Sat, Aug 05, 2023 at 10:32:39AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > 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? No need to send an incremental patch. I just s/out_unlock/out_relock/g in-tree. Thanks!
