From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (lindbergh.monkeyblade.net [23.128.96.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 631413C682 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2023 18:14:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lithops.sigma-star.at (lithops.sigma-star.at [195.201.40.130]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B1FB83; Tue, 3 Oct 2023 11:14:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lithops.sigma-star.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id 864C16340E0E; Tue, 3 Oct 2023 20:14:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from lithops.sigma-star.at ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (lithops.sigma-star.at [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id QeJ_hbG7TRXa; Tue, 3 Oct 2023 20:14:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lithops.sigma-star.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id 899A36340DF3; Tue, 3 Oct 2023 20:14:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from lithops.sigma-star.at ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (lithops.sigma-star.at [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id MM3kCFtSHPOQ; Tue, 3 Oct 2023 20:14:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from lithops.sigma-star.at (lithops.sigma-star.at [195.201.40.130]) by lithops.sigma-star.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FCBC6340DE8; Tue, 3 Oct 2023 20:14:36 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2023 20:14:36 +0200 (CEST) From: Richard Weinberger To: Daniel Golle Cc: Randy Dunlap , Miquel Raynal , Vignesh Raghavendra , Rob Herring , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley , linux-mtd , devicetree , linux-kernel Message-ID: <1553084515.31405.1696356876189.JavaMail.zimbra@nod.at> In-Reply-To: References: Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/8] mtd: ubi: block: don't return on error when removing Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Originating-IP: [195.201.40.130] X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.8.12_GA_3807 (ZimbraWebClient - FF97 (Linux)/8.8.12_GA_3809) Thread-Topic: block: don't return on error when removing Thread-Index: mEjhakoF9gHQlvYZWxhJOUfsm127PA== X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED,SPF_HELO_NONE,T_SPF_PERMERROR autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ----- Urspr=C3=BCngliche Mail ----- > Von: "Daniel Golle" > An: "Randy Dunlap" , "Miquel Raynal" , "richard" , > "Vignesh Raghavendra" , "Rob Herring" , "Krzysztof Kozlowski" > , "Conor Dooley" = , "Daniel Golle" , > "linux-mtd" , "devicetree" , "linux-kernel" > > Gesendet: Freitag, 11. August 2023 03:37:12 > Betreff: [PATCH v4 3/8] mtd: ubi: block: don't return on error when remov= ing > There is no point on returning the error from ubiblock_remove in case > it is being called due to a volume removal event -- the volume is gone, > we should destroy and remove the ubiblock device no matter what. >=20 > Introduce new boolean parameter 'force' to tell ubiblock_remove to go > on even in case the ubiblock device is still busy. Use that new option > when calling ubiblock_remove due to a UBI_VOLUME_REMOVED event. >=20 > Signed-off-by: Daniel Golle > --- > drivers/mtd/ubi/block.c | 6 +++--- > drivers/mtd/ubi/cdev.c | 2 +- > drivers/mtd/ubi/ubi.h | 4 ++-- > 3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >=20 > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/ubi/block.c b/drivers/mtd/ubi/block.c > index 437c5b83ffe51..69fa6fecb8494 100644 > --- a/drivers/mtd/ubi/block.c > +++ b/drivers/mtd/ubi/block.c > @@ -456,7 +456,7 @@ static void ubiblock_cleanup(struct ubiblock *dev) > =09idr_remove(&ubiblock_minor_idr, dev->gd->first_minor); > } >=20 > -int ubiblock_remove(struct ubi_volume_info *vi) > +int ubiblock_remove(struct ubi_volume_info *vi, bool force) > { > =09struct ubiblock *dev; > =09int ret; > @@ -470,7 +470,7 @@ int ubiblock_remove(struct ubi_volume_info *vi) >=20 > =09/* Found a device, let's lock it so we can check if it's busy */ > =09mutex_lock(&dev->dev_mutex); > -=09if (dev->refcnt > 0) { > +=09if (dev->refcnt > 0 && !force) { > =09=09ret =3D -EBUSY; > =09=09goto out_unlock_dev; Is it really safe to destroy the blk queue (via ubiblock_cleanup()) if refc= nt is > 0? Thanks, //richard