Re: [PATCH 8/9] mtip32xx: abort secure erase operation if the device is mounted

[Asai Thambi SP <asamymuthupa@micron.com>]

On 5/12/2015 8:46 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 05/11/2015 06:56 PM, Asai Thambi SP wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Sam Bradshaw <sbradshaw@micron.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Asai Thambi S P <asamymuthupa@micron.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/block/mtip32xx/mtip32xx.c |   12 ++++++++++++
>>   1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/block/mtip32xx/mtip32xx.c b/drivers/block/mtip32xx/mtip32xx.c
>> index 0b223e3..f8c12e1 100644
>> --- a/drivers/block/mtip32xx/mtip32xx.c
>> +++ b/drivers/block/mtip32xx/mtip32xx.c
>> @@ -2147,6 +2147,18 @@ static int exec_drive_taskfile(struct driver_data *dd,
>>           fis.lba_hi,
>>           fis.device);
>>
>> +    /* Check for secure erase while fs mounted */
>> +    if ((fis.command == ATA_CMD_SEC_ERASE_PREP) ||
>> +        (fis.command == ATA_CMD_SEC_ERASE_UNIT) ||
>> +        (fis.command == 0xFC && fis.features == 0x12)) {
>> +        if (dd->bdev && dd->bdev->bd_holders > 0) {
>> +            dev_warn(&dd->pdev->dev, "Drive erase aborted due to non-zero refcount (%d)\n",
>> +                dd->bdev->bd_holders);
>> +            err = -ERESTARTSYS;
>> +            goto abort;
>> +        }
>> +    }
>
> I don't like this. If you want to do something like this, why not claim before these commands and unclaim after? If the claim fails, fail the command.
>
Not aware of bd_claim(). Thanks for the input. I will look into that.

--
Regards,
Asai