On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Miao Xie <mi...@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> +++ b/disk-io.c
> @@ -1270,12 +1270,13 @@ static int close_all_devices(struct btrfs_fs_info
> *fs_info)
> while (!list_empty(list)) {
> device = list_entry(list->next, struct btrfs_device,
> dev_list);
> list_del_init(&device->dev_list);
> - if (device->fd) {
> + if (device->fd != -1) {
> fsync(device->fd);
> if (posix_fadvise(device->fd, 0, 0,
> POSIX_FADV_DONTNEED))
> fprintf(stderr, "Warning, could not drop
> caches\n");
> + close(device->fd);
> + device->fd = -1;
> }
> - close(device->fd);
> kfree(device->name);
> kfree(device->label);
> kfree(device);
I deal with this part too at https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2787291/
Is there any reason to set device->fd to -1 if we just kfree(device)
shortly after?
thanks
--
Filipe David Manana,
"Reasonable men adapt themselves to the world.
Unreasonable men adapt the world to themselves.
That's why all progress depends on unreasonable men."
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
