Hi,
> This is the bigger issue, and I'm not very familiar with this code either,
> so I'll defer to the experts. Yes, it's a change in behavior, but I think
> it makes sense to decrement the bd_fsfreeze_count in this case. Here's why:
>
> If the blockdev is frozen by freeze_bdev while it's being
- Original Message -
> This causes bdev->bd_fsfreeze_sb to be set to NULL even if the call to
> thaw_super right after this line fail. So if a caller tries to call
> thaw_bdev() again after receiving such an error, that next call won't even
> try to call thaw_super(). Is that what we want h
On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 11:08:39PM +, Satya Tangirala wrote:
> > error = sb->s_op->freeze_super(sb);
> > else
> > @@ -600,6 +602,7 @@ int thaw_bdev(struct block_device *bdev)
> > if (!sb)
> > goto out;
> >
> > + bdev->bd_fsfreeze_sb = NULL;
> This causes bdev
ible to emergency_thaw_bdev() in fs/buffer.c)
In my version of the patch, I set bdev->bd_fsfreeze_sb to NULL only
*after* we check that the call to thaw_super() succeeded to avoid this.
> if (sb->s_op->thaw_super)
> error = sb->s_op->thaw_super(sb);
>
- Original Message -
> Can someone pick this up? Maybe through Jens' block tree as that is
> where my commit this is fixing up came from.
Christoph and Al,
Here is my version:
Bob Peterson
fs: fix freeze count problem in freeze_bdev
Before this patch, if you tried to freeze a device (f
- Original Message -
> Can someone pick this up? Maybe through Jens' block tree as that is
> where my commit this is fixing up came from.
>
> For reference:
>
>
> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig
>
> On Thu, Dec 24, 2020 at 04:49:54AM +, Satya Tangirala wrote:
> > freeze/thaw_bdev()
On 1/7/21 9:20 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Can someone pick this up? Maybe through Jens' block tree as that is
> where my commit this is fixing up came from.
>
> For reference:
>
>
> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig
Applied, thanks.
--
Jens Axboe
Can someone pick this up? Maybe through Jens' block tree as that is
where my commit this is fixing up came from.
For reference:
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig
On Thu, Dec 24, 2020 at 04:49:54AM +, Satya Tangirala wrote:
> freeze/thaw_bdev() currently use bdev->bd_fsfreeze_count to infer
>
Looks good,
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig
On Thu, Dec 24, 2020 at 04:49:54AM +, Satya Tangirala wrote:
> freeze/thaw_bdev() currently use bdev->bd_fsfreeze_count to infer
> whether or not bdev->bd_fsfreeze_sb is valid (it's valid iff
> bd_fsfreeze_count is non-zero). thaw_bdev() doesn't nullify
> bd_fsfreeze_sb.
>
> But this means a f
freeze/thaw_bdev() currently use bdev->bd_fsfreeze_count to infer
whether or not bdev->bd_fsfreeze_sb is valid (it's valid iff
bd_fsfreeze_count is non-zero). thaw_bdev() doesn't nullify
bd_fsfreeze_sb.
But this means a freeze_bdev() call followed by a thaw_bdev() call can
leave bd_fsfreeze_sb wit
11 matches
Mail list logo
