From: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Cc: axboe@kernel.dk, hch@lst.de, linux-block@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] block: make __register_blkdev() return an error
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2021 07:57:54 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YTd98oss0WgCwVzY@bombadil.infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d5c7f0e6-8ded-581c-cb10-00e785a7f7b3@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
On Mon, Sep 06, 2021 at 02:59:38PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2021/09/06 3:11, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 04, 2021 at 11:49:06AM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> >> On 2021/09/04 10:39, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> >>> diff --git a/fs/block_dev.c b/fs/block_dev.c
> >>> index 45df6cbccf12..81a4738910a8 100644
> >>> --- a/fs/block_dev.c
> >>> +++ b/fs/block_dev.c
> >>> @@ -1144,10 +1144,13 @@ struct block_device *blkdev_get_no_open(dev_t dev)
> >>> {
> >>> struct block_device *bdev;
> >>> struct inode *inode;
> >>> + int ret;
> >>>
> >>> inode = ilookup(blockdev_superblock, dev);
> >>> if (!inode) {
> >>> - blk_request_module(dev);
> >>> + ret = blk_request_module(dev);
> >>> + if (ret)
> >>> + return NULL;
> >>
> >> Since e.g. loop_add() from loop_probe() returns -EEXIST when /dev/loop$num already
> >> exists (e.g. raced with ioctl(LOOP_CTL_ADD)), isn't unconditionally failing an over-failing?
> >
> > It's not clear to me how. What do we loose by capturing the failure on
> > blk_request_module()?
> >
>
> We loose ability to handle concurrent request.
> If blk_request_module() does not ignore -EEXIST error, only the first
> open() request would succeed because loop_add() returns 0 and all
> other concurrent requests would fail because loop_add() returns
> -EEXIST.
Yes I see that now thanks!
> Actually, blk_request_module() failures should be ignored, for
> subsequent ilookup() will fail if blk_request_module() failed to
> create the requested block device.
Then how about this:
Since we would like to use __must_check for add_disk() we proceed with
the change to capture the errors and propagate them and we just document on
fs/block_dev.c's use of blk_request_module() about the above issue and
how we prefer the errror that ilookup() would return.
Luis
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-07 14:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-09-04 1:39 [PATCH 0/2] block: 7th -- last batch of add_disk() error handling conversions Luis Chamberlain
2021-09-04 1:39 ` [PATCH 1/2] block: make __register_blkdev() return an error Luis Chamberlain
2021-09-04 2:49 ` Tetsuo Handa
2021-09-04 4:14 ` Jens Axboe
2021-09-05 18:11 ` Luis Chamberlain
2021-09-06 5:59 ` Tetsuo Handa
2021-09-07 14:57 ` Luis Chamberlain [this message]
2021-09-07 15:23 ` Tetsuo Handa
2021-09-07 15:28 ` Luis Chamberlain
2021-09-08 14:00 ` Luis Chamberlain
2021-09-04 1:39 ` [PATCH 2/2] block: add __must_check for *add_disk*() callers Luis Chamberlain
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=YTd98oss0WgCwVzY@bombadil.infradead.org \
--to=mcgrof@kernel.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
/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).