From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] swapon(2): open swap with O_EXCL
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2024 00:46:23 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240427234623.GS2118490@ZenIV> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wiag-Dn=7v0tX2UazhMTBzG7P42FkgLSsVc=rfN8_NC2A@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, Apr 27, 2024 at 02:40:22PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 at 14:11, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > ... eliminating the need to reopen block devices so they could be
> > exclusively held.
>
> This looks like a good change, but it raises the question of why we
> did it this odd way to begin with?
>
> Is it just because O_EXCL without O_CREAT is kind of odd, and only has
> meaning for block devices?
>
> Or is it just that before we used fiel pointers for block devices, the
> old model made more sense?
>
> Anyway, I like it, it just makes me go "why didn't we do it that way
> originally?"
Exclusion for swap partitions:
commit 75e9c9e1bffbe4a1767172855296b94ccba28f71
Author: Alexander Viro <viro@math.psu.edu>
Date: Mon Mar 4 22:56:47 2002 -0800
[PATCH] death of is_mounted() and aother fixes
O_EXCL for block devices:
commit c366082d9ed0a0d3c46441d1b3fdf895d8e55ca9
Author: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Date: Wed Aug 20 10:26:57 2003 -0700
[PATCH] Allow O_EXCL on a block device to claim exclusive use.
IOW, O_EXCL hadn't been available at the time - it had been implemented
on top of bd_claim()/bd_release() introduced in the same earlier commit.
Switching swap exclusion to O_EXCL could've been done back in 2003 or
at any later point; it's just that swapon(2)/swapoff(2) is something that
rarely gets a look...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-04-27 23:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-04-27 21:09 [PATCHES][RFC] set_blocksize() rework Al Viro
2024-04-27 21:10 ` [PATCH 1/7] bcache_register(): don't bother with set_blocksize() Al Viro
2024-04-29 5:06 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-04-29 8:37 ` Christian Brauner
2024-04-27 21:10 ` [PATCH 2/7] pktcdvd: sort set_blocksize() calls out Al Viro
2024-04-29 5:07 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-04-29 8:38 ` Christian Brauner
2024-04-27 21:10 ` [PATCH 3/7] swapon(2)/swapoff(2): don't bother with block size Al Viro
2024-04-29 5:08 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-04-29 8:38 ` Christian Brauner
2024-04-27 21:11 ` [PATCH 4/7] swapon(2): open swap with O_EXCL Al Viro
2024-04-27 21:40 ` Linus Torvalds
2024-04-27 23:46 ` Al Viro [this message]
2024-04-28 1:25 ` Al Viro
2024-04-28 18:19 ` Al Viro
2024-04-28 18:46 ` Linus Torvalds
2024-04-28 19:07 ` Al Viro
2024-04-29 5:10 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-04-29 5:09 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-04-29 8:39 ` Christian Brauner
2024-04-27 21:11 ` [PATCH 5/7] swsusp: don't bother with setting block size Al Viro
2024-04-29 5:10 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-04-29 8:40 ` Christian Brauner
2024-04-27 21:12 ` [PATCH 6/7] btrfs_get_dev_args_from_path(): don't call set_blocksize() Al Viro
2024-04-29 5:11 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-04-29 8:40 ` Christian Brauner
2024-04-29 15:11 ` David Sterba
2024-04-30 2:05 ` Al Viro
2024-04-27 21:13 ` [PATCH 7/7] set_blocksize(): switch to passing struct file *, fail if it's not opened exclusive Al Viro
2024-04-29 5:12 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-04-29 8:42 ` Christian Brauner
2024-05-03 3:18 ` [PATCHES v2][RFC] set_blocksize() rework Al Viro
2024-05-03 4:17 ` [PATCH v2 1/9] bcache_register(): don't bother with set_blocksize() Al Viro
2024-05-03 4:17 ` [PATCH v2 2/9] pktcdvd: sort set_blocksize() calls out Al Viro
2024-05-03 4:17 ` [PATCH v2 3/9] swapon(2)/swapoff(2): don't bother with block size Al Viro
2024-05-03 4:17 ` [PATCH v2 4/9] swapon(2): open swap with O_EXCL Al Viro
2024-05-03 4:17 ` [PATCH v2 5/9] zram: don't bother with reopening - just use O_EXCL for open Al Viro
2024-05-03 4:17 ` [PATCH v2 6/9] swsusp: don't bother with setting block size Al Viro
2024-05-03 4:17 ` [PATCH v2 7/9] btrfs_get_bdev_and_sb(): call set_blocksize() only for exclusive opens Al Viro
2024-05-03 4:17 ` [PATCH v2 8/9] set_blocksize(): switch to passing struct file * Al Viro
2024-05-03 4:17 ` [PATCH v2 9/9] make set_blocksize() fail unless block device is opened exclusive Al Viro
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20240427234623.GS2118490@ZenIV \
--to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).