From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 15:53:47 +0100 From: Jan Kara To: Tejun Heo Cc: Jan Kara , Jens Axboe , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig , Dan Williams , Thiago Jung Bauermann , NeilBrown Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] block: Move bdev_unhash_inode() after invalidate_partition() Message-ID: <20170220145347.GC2315@quack2.suse.cz> References: <20170209124433.2626-1-jack@suse.cz> <20170209124433.2626-2-jack@suse.cz> <20170212035833.GA29323@mtj.duckdns.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20170212035833.GA29323@mtj.duckdns.org> List-ID: On Sun 12-02-17 12:58:33, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 01:44:24PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > > Move bdev_unhash_inode() after invalidate_partition() as > > invalidate_partition() looks up bdev and will unnecessarily recreate it > > if bdev_unhash_inode() destroyed it. Also use part_devt() when calling > > bdev_unhash_inode() instead of manually creating the device number. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jan Kara > > Acked-by: Tejun Heo > > > @@ -648,9 +648,8 @@ void del_gendisk(struct gendisk *disk) > > disk_part_iter_init(&piter, disk, > > DISK_PITER_INCL_EMPTY | DISK_PITER_REVERSE); > > while ((part = disk_part_iter_next(&piter))) { > > - bdev_unhash_inode(MKDEV(disk->major, > > - disk->first_minor + part->partno)); > > invalidate_partition(disk, part->partno); > > + bdev_unhash_inode(part_devt(part)); > > delete_partition(disk, part->partno); > > So, before this patch, invalidate_partition() would have operated on a > newly created inode and thus wouldn't have actually invalidated the > existing bdev / mapping, right? Yes, that is another effect. I'll add a note about this to the changelog. Thanks for noting this. Honza -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR