[lkml]   [2001]   [Sep]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 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

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:03    [W:0.103 / U:1.672 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site