Re: [RFC PATCH] scsi, block: fix duplicate bdi name registration crashes

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:57:05PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote: > > struct kref { > atomic_t refcount; > }; > > ...so what do we gain by open coding kref_get() and kref_put()? A much less ugly calling convention.

Re: [RFC PATCH] scsi, block: fix duplicate bdi name registration crashes

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:57:05PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote: > > struct kref { > atomic_t refcount; > }; > > ...so what do we gain by open coding kref_get() and kref_put()? A much less ugly calling convention.

Re: [RFC PATCH] scsi, block: fix duplicate bdi name registration crashes

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 01:53:36PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:24 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > Hi Dan, > > > > this looks mostly fine to me. A few code comments below, but except > > for this there is another issue with it: We still have drivers > >

Re: [RFC PATCH] scsi, block: fix duplicate bdi name registration crashes

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 01:53:36PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:24 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > Hi Dan, > > > > this looks mostly fine to me. A few code comments below, but except > > for this there is another issue with it: We still have drivers > > that share a

Re: [RFC PATCH] scsi, block: fix duplicate bdi name registration crashes

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:24 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Hi Dan, > > this looks mostly fine to me. A few code comments below, but except > for this there is another issue with it: We still have drivers > that share a single request_queue for multiple gendisks, so I wonder scsi

Re: [RFC PATCH] scsi, block: fix duplicate bdi name registration crashes

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:24 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Hi Dan, > > this looks mostly fine to me. A few code comments below, but except > for this there is another issue with it: We still have drivers > that share a single request_queue for multiple gendisks, so I wonder scsi drivers or

Re: [RFC PATCH] scsi, block: fix duplicate bdi name registration crashes

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:24 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Hi Dan, > > this looks mostly fine to me. A few code comments below, but except > for this there is another issue with it: We still have drivers > that share a single request_queue for multiple gendisks, so I wonder > >

Re: [RFC PATCH] scsi, block: fix duplicate bdi name registration crashes

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:24 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Hi Dan, > > this looks mostly fine to me. A few code comments below, but except > for this there is another issue with it: We still have drivers > that share a single request_queue for multiple gendisks, so I wonder > > Also I think

Re: [RFC PATCH] scsi, block: fix duplicate bdi name registration crashes

Hi Dan, this looks mostly fine to me. A few code comments below, but except for this there is another issue with it: We still have drivers that share a single request_queue for multiple gendisks, so I wonder Also I think you probably want one patch for the block framework, and one to switch

Re: [RFC PATCH] scsi, block: fix duplicate bdi name registration crashes

Hi Dan, this looks mostly fine to me. A few code comments below, but except for this there is another issue with it: We still have drivers that share a single request_queue for multiple gendisks, so I wonder Also I think you probably want one patch for the block framework, and one to switch

Re: [RFC PATCH] scsi, block: fix duplicate bdi name registration crashes

On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 11:22 PM, Omar Sandoval wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 08:05:52AM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote: >> On 01/29/2017 05:58 AM, Dan Williams wrote: >> > Warnings of the following form occur because scsi reuses a devt number >> > while the block layer

Re: [RFC PATCH] scsi, block: fix duplicate bdi name registration crashes

On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 11:22 PM, Omar Sandoval wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 08:05:52AM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote: >> On 01/29/2017 05:58 AM, Dan Williams wrote: >> > Warnings of the following form occur because scsi reuses a devt number >> > while the block layer still has it referenced

Re: [RFC PATCH] scsi, block: fix duplicate bdi name registration crashes

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 08:05:52AM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > On 01/29/2017 05:58 AM, Dan Williams wrote: > > Warnings of the following form occur because scsi reuses a devt number > > while the block layer still has it referenced as the name of the bdi > > [1]: > > > > WARNING: CPU: 1 PID:

Re: [RFC PATCH] scsi, block: fix duplicate bdi name registration crashes

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 08:05:52AM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > On 01/29/2017 05:58 AM, Dan Williams wrote: > > Warnings of the following form occur because scsi reuses a devt number > > while the block layer still has it referenced as the name of the bdi > > [1]: > > > > WARNING: CPU: 1 PID:

Re: [RFC PATCH] scsi, block: fix duplicate bdi name registration crashes

On 01/29/2017 05:58 AM, Dan Williams wrote: > Warnings of the following form occur because scsi reuses a devt number > while the block layer still has it referenced as the name of the bdi > [1]: > > WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 93 at fs/sysfs/dir.c:31 sysfs_warn_dup+0x62/0x80 > sysfs: cannot create

Re: [RFC PATCH] scsi, block: fix duplicate bdi name registration crashes

On 01/29/2017 05:58 AM, Dan Williams wrote: > Warnings of the following form occur because scsi reuses a devt number > while the block layer still has it referenced as the name of the bdi > [1]: > > WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 93 at fs/sysfs/dir.c:31 sysfs_warn_dup+0x62/0x80 > sysfs: cannot create

[RFC PATCH] scsi, block: fix duplicate bdi name registration crashes

Warnings of the following form occur because scsi reuses a devt number while the block layer still has it referenced as the name of the bdi [1]: WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 93 at fs/sysfs/dir.c:31 sysfs_warn_dup+0x62/0x80 sysfs: cannot create duplicate filename '/devices/virtual/bdi/8:192' [..] Call

[RFC PATCH] scsi, block: fix duplicate bdi name registration crashes

Warnings of the following form occur because scsi reuses a devt number while the block layer still has it referenced as the name of the bdi [1]: WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 93 at fs/sysfs/dir.c:31 sysfs_warn_dup+0x62/0x80 sysfs: cannot create duplicate filename '/devices/virtual/bdi/8:192' [..] Call