![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On 5/21/07, Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> No, it doesn't. Really. It's easy to split; untested incremental to your
> patch follows:
>
> for (i = 0; i < nr; i++) {
> - if (!loop_init_one(i))
> - goto err;
> + lo = loop_alloc(i);
> + if (!lo)
> + goto Enomem;
> + list_add_tail(&lo->lo_list, &loop_devices);
> }
ah, yes, use the loop_device list_head to link all the pending devices.
> + /* point of no return */
> +
> + list_for_each_entry(lo, &loop_devices, lo_list)
> + add_disk(lo->lo_disk);
> +
> + blk_register_region(MKDEV(LOOP_MAJOR, 0), range,
> + THIS_MODULE, loop_probe, NULL, NULL);
> +
> printk(KERN_INFO "loop: module loaded\n");
> return 0;
> -err:
> - loop_exit();
> +
> +Enomem:
> printk(KERN_INFO "loop: out of memory\n");
> +
> + while(!list_empty(&loop_devices)) {
> + lo = list_entry(loop_devices.next, struct loop_device, lo_list);
> + loop_del_one(lo);
> + }
> +
> + unregister_blkdev(LOOP_MAJOR, "loop");
> return -ENOMEM;
> }
I suppose the loop_del_one call in Enomem label needs to be split up
too since in the error path, it hasn't done add_disk() yet?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2007-05-22 04:17 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||