On 5/21/07, Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No, it doesn't. Really. It's easy to split; untested incremental to your
patch follows:
for (i = 0; i < nr; i++) {
- if (!loop_init_one(i))
- goto err;
+ lo = loop_alloc(i);
+ if (!lo)
+ goto Enomem;
+ list_add_tail(&lo->lo_list, &loop_devices);
}
ah, yes, use the loop_device list_head to link all the pending devices.
+ /* point of no return */
+
+ list_for_each_entry(lo, &loop_devices, lo_list)
+ add_disk(lo->lo_disk);
+
+ blk_register_region(MKDEV(LOOP_MAJOR, 0), range,
+ THIS_MODULE, loop_probe, NULL, NULL);
+
printk(KERN_INFO "loop: module loaded\n");
return 0;
-err:
- loop_exit();
+
+Enomem:
printk(KERN_INFO "loop: out of memory\n");
+
+ while(!list_empty(&loop_devices)) {
+ lo = list_entry(loop_devices.next, struct loop_device, lo_list);
+ loop_del_one(lo);
+ }
+
+ unregister_blkdev(LOOP_MAJOR, "loop");
return -ENOMEM;
}
I suppose the loop_del_one call in Enomem label needs to be split up
too since in the error path, it hasn't done add_disk() yet?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
