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 --]
next prev 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).