All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Michal Koutný" <mkoutny@suse.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
	Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
	linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: s390 boot woe due to "block: fix busy device checking in blk_drop_partitions"
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 13:07:38 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200423110738.GA102241@blackbook> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200410054544.GA17923@lst.de>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 704 bytes --]

Hi.

On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 07:45:44AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote:
> @@ -496,7 +496,7 @@ int blk_drop_partitions(struct gendisk *disk, struct block_device *bdev)
> -	if (bdev->bd_part_count || bdev->bd_openers)
> +	if (bdev->bd_part_count || bdev->bd_openers > 1)
>  		return -EBUSY;
I noticed this (and the previous patch) change unmasks race between
ioctl(LOOP_SET_STATUS64, ... lo_flags=LO_FLAGS_PARTSCAN ...) and udev
processing loop device uevents. See [1] for details.

Should the condition be changed in the case of newly setup loop devices?
(Or shouldn't the ioctl propagate EBUSY in its return value?)

Thanks,
Michal

[1] https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1169932

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-04-23 11:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-04-09 23:33 s390 boot woe due to "block: fix busy device checking in blk_drop_partitions" Qian Cai
2020-04-10  5:45 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-04-10 12:20   ` Qian Cai
2020-04-23 11:07   ` Michal Koutný [this message]
2020-04-27 16:10     ` Christoph Hellwig

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20200423110738.GA102241@blackbook \
    --to=mkoutny@suse.com \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=cai@lca.pw \
    --cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.