Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Fri, 21 Sep 2001 04:42:22 +0200 | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: Linux 2.4.10-pre11 |
| |
On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 09:50:52PM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote: > Andrea, what's the point of making blkdev_get() bump ->bd_count > in case of success and blkdev_put() - drop it? We _do_ grab a reference > before calling blkdev_get() - any place where we don't is an immediately > oopsable hole both in the old an in the new tree. Notice that you > do down(&bdev->bd_sem) before that increment of refcount, so if caller > doesn't hold a reference we are toast. What's going on there?
I just wanted to make sure the bdev couldn't be released under us by owning a reference for the whole duration of the blkdev_get/put. But requiring the caller to hold the reference for us seems saner since the caller will have to pass the bdev as parameter anyways, so yes it seems superflous.
Andrea - 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/
|  |