On (02/02/15 12:41), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > If we use zram as block device itself(not a fs or swap) and open the
> > block device as !FMODE_EXCL, bd_holders will be void.
> >
> > Another topic: As I didn't see enough fs/block_dev.c bd_holders in zram
> > would be mess. I guess we need to study hotplug of device and implement
> > it for zram reset rather than strange own konb. It should go TODO. :(
>
> Actually, I thought bd_mutex use from custom driver was terrible idea
> so we should walk around with device hotplug but as I look through
> another drivers, they have used the lock for a long time.
> Maybe it's okay to use it in zram?
> If so, Ganesh's patch is no problem to me although I didn't' review it in
> detail.
> One thing I want to point out is that it would be better to change bd_holders
> with bd_openers to filter out because dd test opens block device as !EXCL
> so bd_holders will be void.
>
> What do you think about it?
>
a quick idea:
can we additionally move all bd flush and put work after
zram_reset_device(zram, true)
and, perhaps, replace ->bd_holders with something else?
zram_reset_device() will not return until we have active IOs, pending IOs will
be
invalidated by ->disksize != 0.
-ss
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
