On Thu, Jun 08, 2023 at 01:02:29PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> --- a/block/bdev.c
> +++ b/block/bdev.c
> @@ -683,9 +683,6 @@ static int blkdev_get_part(struct block_device *part,
> fmode_t mode)
> struct gendisk *disk = part->bd_disk;
> int ret;
>
> - if (atomic_read(&part->bd_openers))
> - goto done;
> -
> ret = blkdev_get_whole(bdev_whole(part), mode);
> if (ret)
> return ret;
> @@ -694,9 +691,10 @@ static int blkdev_get_part(struct block_device *part,
> fmode_t mode)
> if (!bdev_nr_sectors(part))
> goto out_blkdev_put;
>
> - disk->open_partitions++;
> - set_init_blocksize(part);
> -done:
> + if (!atomic_read(&part->bd_openers)) {
> + disk->open_partitions++;
> + set_init_blocksize(part);
> + }
[with apologies for very late (and tangential) reply]
That got me curious about the ->bd_openers - do we need it atomic?
Most of the users (and all places that do modifications) are
under ->open_mutex; the only exceptions are
* early sync logics in blkdev_put(); it's explicitly racy -
see the comment there.
* callers of disk_openers() in loop and nbd (the ones in
zram are under ->open_mutex). There's driver-private exclusion
around those, but in any case - READ_ONCE() is no worse than
atomic_read() in those cases.
Is there something subtle I'm missing here?
_______________________________________________
linux-um mailing list
linux-um@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-um
