From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4FC5C41513 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2023 16:14:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229787AbjHIQOQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Aug 2023 12:14:16 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:53302 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229549AbjHIQOP (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Aug 2023 12:14:15 -0400 Received: from verein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03604C3; Wed, 9 Aug 2023 09:14:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id 329E26732D; Wed, 9 Aug 2023 18:14:11 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2023 18:14:11 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: "Darrick J. Wong" Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Al Viro , Christian Brauner , Namjae Jeon , Sungjong Seo , Theodore Ts'o , Andreas Dilger , Konstantin Komarov , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, ntfs3@lists.linux.dev, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/13] xfs: close the external block devices in xfs_mount_free Message-ID: <20230809161411.GA2346@lst.de> References: <20230808161600.1099516-1-hch@lst.de> <20230808161600.1099516-8-hch@lst.de> <20230809155524.GU11352@frogsfrogsfrogs> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20230809155524.GU11352@frogsfrogsfrogs> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 08:55:24AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > If I'm following this correctly, putting the superblock flushes the > bdevs (though it doesn't invalidate the bdev mapping!) and only later > when we free the xfs_mount do we actually put the buftargs? > > That works, though I still think we need to invalidate the bdev > pagecache for the log and data bdevs. Yes, I'll respin it with that. And I'll also add a comment to the invalidate_bdev calls because it's completely non-obvious as-is.