linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Michal Koutný" <mkoutny@suse.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
	Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
	linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: s390 boot woe due to "block: fix busy device checking in blk_drop_partitions"
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 13:07:38 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200423110738.GA102241@blackbook> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200410054544.GA17923@lst.de>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 704 bytes --]

Hi.

On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 07:45:44AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote:
> @@ -496,7 +496,7 @@ int blk_drop_partitions(struct gendisk *disk, struct block_device *bdev)
> -	if (bdev->bd_part_count || bdev->bd_openers)
> +	if (bdev->bd_part_count || bdev->bd_openers > 1)
>  		return -EBUSY;
I noticed this (and the previous patch) change unmasks race between
ioctl(LOOP_SET_STATUS64, ... lo_flags=LO_FLAGS_PARTSCAN ...) and udev
processing loop device uevents. See [1] for details.

Should the condition be changed in the case of newly setup loop devices?
(Or shouldn't the ioctl propagate EBUSY in its return value?)

Thanks,
Michal

[1] https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1169932

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-04-23 11:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-04-09 23:33 s390 boot woe due to "block: fix busy device checking in blk_drop_partitions" Qian Cai
2020-04-10  5:45 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-04-10 12:20   ` Qian Cai
2020-04-23 11:07   ` Michal Koutný [this message]
2020-04-27 16:10     ` Christoph Hellwig

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=20200423110738.GA102241@blackbook \
    --to=mkoutny@suse.com \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=cai@lca.pw \
    --cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.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).