From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] loop: make partition scanning reliable Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 11:13:28 -0500 Message-ID: <20150126161328.GA21242@htj.dyndns.org> References: <1422267319-8428-1-git-send-email-dh.herrmann@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jens Axboe , Andrew Morton , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: David Herrmann Return-path: Received: from mail-qc0-f178.google.com ([209.85.216.178]:38069 "EHLO mail-qc0-f178.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752553AbbAZQNc (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jan 2015 11:13:32 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1422267319-8428-1-git-send-email-dh.herrmann@gmail.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hello, David. On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 11:15:19AM +0100, David Herrmann wrote: > -static int blkdev_reread_part(struct block_device *bdev) > +int blkdev_reread_part(struct block_device *bdev, int skipbusy) > { > struct gendisk *disk = bdev->bd_disk; > int res; > @@ -159,12 +159,15 @@ static int blkdev_reread_part(struct block_device *bdev) > return -EINVAL; > if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)) > return -EACCES; > - if (!mutex_trylock(&bdev->bd_mutex)) > + if (!skipbusy) > + mutex_lock(&bdev->bd_mutex); > + else if (!mutex_trylock(&bdev->bd_mutex)) > return -EBUSY; Do we actually need the mutex_trylock() path? Why can't we just always grab the mutex? ... > diff --git a/drivers/block/loop.c b/drivers/block/loop.c > index 6cb1beb..4047985 100644 > --- a/drivers/block/loop.c > +++ b/drivers/block/loop.c > @@ -637,7 +637,7 @@ out: > * new backing store is the same size and type as the old backing store. > */ > static int loop_change_fd(struct loop_device *lo, struct block_device *bdev, > - unsigned int arg) > + unsigned int arg, int *rrpart) bool *rrpart would be better but can't we communicate this through the return value? Wouldn't that be prettier? Thanks. -- tejun