Chaitanya,
> This series just replaces the existing accesses without changing
> anything.
>
> So if any of the exiting code has that bug then it will blow up
> nicely.
>
> For future callers I don't mind adding a new check and resend the
> series.
>
> Would you prefer adding a check ?
I checked
On 7/11/19 6:59 PM, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> Hi Chaitanya,
>
>> +static inline sector_t bdev_nr_sects(struct block_device *bdev)
>> +{
>> +return part_nr_sects_read(bdev->bd_part);
>> +}
> Can bdev end up being NULL in any of the call sites?
>
> Otherwise no objections.
>
Thanks for mentioni
Hi Chaitanya,
> +static inline sector_t bdev_nr_sects(struct block_device *bdev)
> +{
> + return part_nr_sects_read(bdev->bd_part);
> +}
Can bdev end up being NULL in any of the call sites?
Otherwise no objections.
--
Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering
_
